Author Topic: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?  (Read 415 times)

JRB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« on: May 31, 2021, 07:10:48 AM »
Team,
I have been searching ABOK and any other references I can find to identify the name of this hitch to no avail. It is similar to ABOK 1919 and 1920, but not a match.  I would describe it as a "similar to a bull hitch in function, but tied in the bight and closed with a carabiner around a fixed object such as a tree trunk".  I just recorded this video, however, as I post this, the video is currently unlisted, only visible to those who have the link.  I can remove and re-record the video if I find out it has a formal name.  By using it and the recently introduced JRB Hitch (in a nearby thread in this forum), I have an entirely new and unique tree/rope climbing method and have plans to get those instructions published.  Thank you.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 06:22:00 AM by JRB »

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2021, 03:32:33 PM »
Hello and thanks for another interesting presentation.

The closest analog to your presentation that I can find is #1920 ('Toggled bight').
As with all claims of originality - only in the fullness of time will definite answers be forthcoming - so once again, need to be patient.

Commentary:
Not sure why you chose the name 'hunters hitch? If you are inferring a relationship to the #1425 Riggers bend (aka Hunters bend) - it has no geometric similarity.
A more appropriate name is perhaps a twisted toggled bight hitch?
EDIT NOTE: I see now that you might have intended a reference to hunting (not 'Hunters bend'). I would nevertheless avoid the use of 'hunter' due to possible confusion with Hunters bend.

The carabiner serves as a 'toggle'.
Theoretically, a long length eye bolt could be employed as a toggle - and a pull cord attached to the eye of the bolt (obviously would need to be assessed to determine security).

Hopefully Xarax will have a look at your presentation and comment?
« Last Edit: May 31, 2021, 03:35:23 PM by agent_smith »

SS369

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1951
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2021, 08:07:52 PM »
Hi JRB.

Thanks for this.
I would add another turn around the anchor and try this with a ?fiddlestick? for a remote release.
Most times when I climb, the descents are not terribly long and I generally rappel using my rope doubled. But, it does seem that I could use this with a single rope descent using a bight and tail long enough to tie it safely.

SS

JRB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2021, 02:34:47 AM »
Gentlemen, thank you for the prompt and informative responses. Some more info: Although we have a separate thread on the "JRB Hitch" which is a quick release hitch, it is not my intention for this hitch to be a quick release hitch. This hitch is intended to be tied in hand and released in hand. I realize another device such as a pin could be used for the toggle (and thanks for helping me with my vocabulary) but we already have a fiddlestick used with the Stone/Stein knot and frankly, it's too complex a system and too easily released for any applications I want to be associated with. That's what the JRB hitch was replacing and it's performing great.  I need both this hitch AND the JRB hitch to solve a problem (perhaps a challenge) I have been working on: How does a climber walk up to a tree with no available branches or crotches for tie in (using a throwball and conventional arborist methods) and simply attach to the trunk (somehow) and start rope climbing it (safely, tied in at all times) ? .... And with one rope, using friction hitches and no mechanical devices, except carabiners? I have solved the problem, and I have two solutions.  One of the solutions involves the use of this hitch and so I am trying to make sure that I introduce this hitch before I describe how to climb on it. I have learned to never underestimate how aggressive some climbers can be with their lives on the line and do everything possible to introduce information in a logical sequence and minimize the chances of anyone gambling with their lives based on the info in one video. When I demonstrate the method, knowledge of this hitch and other info will be a prerequisite before anyone attempts a climb.

As for my suggested name: Saddle Hunters are a growing breed of hunters who hunt their quarry, typically deer, from an elevated position in a tree, and wearing a saddle, which is similar to the seat/harness that an arborist wears. That is my audience and my original intention was to name it for them and give it to them. I am very familiar with Hunters/Riggers bend and why it has 2 names. (It's also my favorite bend.) I had assumed the names were adequately different to distinguish but I heed your input. I need to think on that though....

I also am not implying anything about the security or efficiency/strength of this hitch. But I have tied and tested it and its variations extensively and found this one ideal.   For maximum strength, I can show you the variations ASAP.  My primary intention with this post was to simply find out if it has a name, and wound up on the same page of ABOK as Agent Smith, but found no matches .

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2021, 10:16:22 AM »
Very nice, can it maintain a spread double bearing on host?
>>And yes can see is bends of toggled/done similar with hooks and links etc., but not open toggle pin/rather closed, but not for quick loaded release, only simple/positive release unloaded seems, with less rope on rope for controlling frictions thru arcs.
Strength/efficiency wise, i think the deformity given by carabiner pulls along more than shears across
most loaded point of initial deformity in SPart(Standing Part).
So across pull on most loaded ropePart , input force imposed against SPart ;
is more splice like/more legendary Cat's Paw #1891/Bull Hitch like like along SPart properly thru 2dimensional along column grip, than
trying to break support column shearing across at Samson angle/lateral via 1dimensional pull more across column.
The Achille's Heel of any linear support/column is cross-axis force 90degree across given column.
.
Simpler hook around SPart seats easier to host, but shears across SPart harder in trade.
More complex actual gripping around SPart(rather than hook slider) makes stronger as doesn't seat as hard unless forced,
that then seeks to maintain that harsher deformity tho.
Seating to host of this part of mechanix is thus reciprocal of strength/efficiency; whether self slide up or hand forced,
the tighter seats this ropePart to host, the more must deform SPart destabilizing efficiency in trade.
Round Turn(RT) on host would give grip on host and then Saddle Hunter's finish that doesn't have to be seated as tight to host?
>>More wrap2/pull1 like only with (ends) close on SPart, rather than host, as might try same with Friction Hitch
>>that grips along rather than shears across SPart column of support against load imposed, make hitch side pull harder and allow self adjust.
More pointed 'teepee' (Tom Dunlap-ism) of joint is stronger, than flatter teepee in wrap2/pull1 etc.
i look at wrap2/pull1 as a 1 dimensional grip on host and wrap3/pull2 upgrades to can get 2 dimensional grip on host.
Then bends on/around SPart similar : 1 Turn is 1D PULL SHEAR ACROSS host/SPart,
Full wrap aRound upgrade is 1D GRIP ON host/SPart,
RT upgrade around SPart can give 2D GRIP ON host/SPart,
.
Especially for climbing believe in closed (both legs pulled) or
terminated/stopped run(on Bitter End leg).
Even if w/quick slipknot mechanical stop.
Probably as overkill, purist, religion tho..
.
Show @TB?
Seems title/knot name center mast gets obscured by youTube logo/play btn, might move title to left if easy play btn will be darker on some sites etc. obscuring immediate knot reference name.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2021, 01:21:06 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

JRB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2021, 05:41:26 AM »
Very nice, can it maintain a spread double bearing on host?
Thank you for your reply.  Full disclosure: although I am an engineer, most of my knotting experience is self-inflicted and so I am still learning some necessary terminology.  Some of your reply seems to be observations and commentary rather than questions and so let's start at the top:  I have not done extensive testing of the hitch except to ascertain that it's roughly the functional equivalent of a bull hitch, but formed with a mechanical toggle such that it can be tied in the bight.  (If it needs a name and my suggestion is not ideal, perhaps we'll refer to it as a 'mechanical bull hitch',).  The limited amount of load testing I have done is on either strand or both strands and in the general direction demonstrated in the video.  Loading both strands independently and varying the angle of pull is a reasonable expectation and to my initial and crude assessment, the hitch can sustain such a load.  In fact, loading both strands in a spread fashion and taking the angle of the spread to a full 180 degrees seems to be the position in which the hitch cinches the most securely to the host object.  It also puts a different set of forces on the toggle, and so it becomes essential that the toggle is indeed an object like a carabiner and that the device can sustain that type of force without sliding into the gate or other compromise. 

Pls let me know if anything else was a question for me.

As for the layout of the YouTube video, to my knowledge the 16:9 thumbnail image and placement of the text in the center is fairly standard.

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2021, 11:32:11 AM »
i am all self taught on this, but helped raise an engineer, sent many questions to school thru him over time to true imageries to hard core numbers; and show rope is just another material to build in, subject to same laws, not really special in that way.
Would have to heat metal to bend as rope, then cool to use.
Rope is opposite: form cold/unloaded  >> heat/load to make rigid support(just enough to purpose); but just another material none the less.
To me this all pretty much sorts to: support geometry, controlling frictions, nips and grips to track thru gauntlets of understanding what is going on.
.
At one point had to stop looking at rope as unique complication w/o other parallels; and un-learn/start over.  In reverse view i began to look at rope as simpler form to L-earn before more complicated rigid supports.  Rope only loads on tension/not compression, and only along it's linear length/not either of it's cross axises, that in round rope are equal in deformity, no 3rd Dimension complications.  Also, tension side force is self correcting/centering, compression is opposite, so rope work is always drawing to correct center with side forces as uses tension only.  Rigid support is more tangible familiarity but then also more factors !  ABoK reflects on loading rope onto great ships; but in use a rope was then a line; to me a geometric support line/support column implied in the lingo.
.
Bull Hitch is very precise example here to me; as both exert not just a lateral pull shearing across SPart,
like with 1x180, but rather 2x180 to grip along SPart more properly like a splice, Bull Hitch, Cat's Paw etc.

.
On host mount or SPart:
1x180 is a 1Dimensional pull, should be used at right angle only, on SPart will slide up to host for harshest shearing/Samson angle perpendicular to support across column of SPart
2x180 arcs add 1 Dimensional GRIP along SPart, can handle some 2D force of across and along SPart, to deform SPart less harshly.
3x180 arcs upgrade to 2Dimensional grip on SPart, so pulls more along SPart, than across even more
more 180s extend/add to the 2D framework
.
As these pull along rather than across SPart more to be stronger, then grip host less in trade.
Finite force volume, can grip SPart or host with as antagonistic reciprocals for the force volume usage to task (grip host or SPart as a host to that section of arcs).
The 1x180 1D pull, 2x180 1D grip, and 3x180 2D grip benchmarks function on host as well as SPart.
.
A rope tied to host that runs at right angle to host is 1D support inline across host.
A rope tied to host that runs parallel along of host is 2D support,
>>1D pulls across host as also 1D pulls along host too (lengthwise pull in ABoK chap_22).
Friction Hitches are part of this 2D, pull along host column , as also grip across that host column.
.
Geometry.....literally at every angle that reflects in every facet of same lessons in this jewel.
Host shape is very important, as it lends that support shape to rope device/medium.
That is then forged rigid in usage/loading as a support architecture from rope path as a shape and and also shape lent by host that combine to be support architecture geometry of rope as loads against aggressive/imposed force input to passive/unenergized BUT responding rope, that seeks not to be fight aggressor, but rather just more passively just maintain it's ground.  Linear faces for host are not nearly as good as radial for this reason. 
A 180arc is as great a miracle in rope tension arc as stone bridge compression arc !!!
>>Same arc shape lent to materials, just reverses direction to tension instead of compression flow thru material chosen.
>>Stone etc. only works well in compression, rope in tension; both use arc to do so.
>>linear angle in rigid to same support would have to use compression + tension
(stone tension tolerance ~10% of stone compression tolerance)
.
Youtube comment was just that saw presenting newer, enthusiastic form;
with title kinda obscured to "tying the sad hunter's hitch" were convention seemed as cloak to obscure function.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 01:43:04 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2021, 04:27:03 PM »
Hello JRB (john),

Some quick comments:
1. I suggest that you name your creation the "JRB toggle hitch" (or something along those lines)
2. The 'JRB toggle hitch' is 'EEL' (either end loadable)
3. It is TIB (tiable in the bight)
4. It has a small footprint
5. It is jam resistant.

With regard to your comment:
Quote
For maximum strength, I can show you the variations ASAP.
The MBS yield (ie strength) of  knot structure is irrelevant. There is no load that a single climber can generate that will ever reach the MBS yield point of your toggle hitch.
Your principle concerns would be in relation to stability and security (and resistance to jamming).
Your presented security device is what I refer to as a encapsulating (closed) toggle.
This is in contrast to an open toggle (eg something like an eye bolt instead of a carabiner).

Any 'load' testing that you carry out should be; slack shaking and cyclic loading (as well as pulse/whiplash loading).
This is in contrast to the default mindset of 'pull-it-till-it-breaks' (which largely proves nothing).

The only reasons why someone would load test a knot to its MBS yield point is to measure things like jam resistance, and to assess certain geometries in terms of the effect it has (against a control).

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2021, 09:26:28 AM »
Arbos. and many other rope disciplines do carry and study to carry more than 2xBodyweight , and then sometimes with high impact impact by design or fault that one would not put on a bod.
.
Daily taking some of these same principles from lifeline loads on 1/2" or so and going to 5/8,3/4 or even 1".
.
Then also dragging across ground, sometimes then hoisting or parbuckling large lengths 2', 3' in diameter to load on trailer etc.
.
Climbing gives feel of being that load and working the system; but questions wonder about in that saddle go far beyond saddle.
.
Even a tap is massive, from a ton of force.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2021, 10:05:09 AM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~

JRB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2021, 06:20:48 AM »
1. I suggest that you name your creation the "JRB toggle hitch" (or something along those lines)
2. The 'JRB toggle hitch' is 'EEL' (either end loadable)
3. It is TIB (tiable in the bight)
4. It has a small footprint
5. It is jam resistant.

Agent Smith, and team, I appreciate your input.  In the first video, I simply wanted to introduce the basic hitch, fully expecting that it was already an explored path.   Given the discussion and lack of such evidence, I just recorded another video where I demonstrate some of my own exploration on the hitch, with comparison to ABOK #1919 and 1920, the Toggled Hitch.  I hope you can find time to view it and provide commentary.  Like the first video, the video was created as 'unlisted', meaning that it can be publicly viewed by anyone with the link, but will not show up in searches or subscriptions.  I might change the visibility later, after appropriate discussion. 

Regarding naming, I am not in a rush to complete that exercise before I/we get some discussion. But given our separate thread on the "JRB Hitch" which is different entity, when it comes to potential names, I think that the suggestion of the "JRB Toggle Hitch" has the potential for greater confusion than the name I suggested: "Saddle Hunter's Hitch".  After all, a search for "JRB Hitch" would turn up THIS hitch as well as the other one, and someone might be confused and try tying the wrong knot for their application. "Hunter's Bend" and "Saddle Hunter's Hitch" only have one word in common and less chance of confusion.  The "Tether Hitch" or "Toggled Tether Hitch" would also be accurate possibilities.   


agent_smith

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2021, 07:27:04 AM »
Hello John,

I really like your contributions and enthusiasm.
You are motivated to keep expanding the envelope of knotting knowledge.

Quick bit of feedback with your video:

At 7:15: It is a 2:1 M.A. (not 3:1 M.A.).
All you have done is 'redirected' the hauling part through the carabiner.
Note that if you were suspended above the ground, you could 'pump' the redirected hauling part with your foot (climbers do this on big walls to haul their equipment).

The so called 'Blakes hitch' is functioning as a 'PCD' (progress capture device).
PCD is the correct technical term.

at 8:27: Now starting to become an analogue of a 'cats paw' ?

at 9:28: Now a 'soft toggle' (in contrast to a hard toggle) - and possibly described as a soft 'slipped' toggle?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2021, 07:37:30 AM by agent_smith »

JRB

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 23
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #11 on: June 11, 2021, 06:33:47 AM »
Quick bit of feedback with your video:

Agent Smith, Thanks for the input, support, and ongoing knotting vocabulary lesson.   I am having fun of course.  I like to think of knots, rope systems, and climbing systems as "technology", despite how that word has taken on new dimensions during our lifetime.  I can only imagine and appreciate how much work Sir Ashley did to compile his book and how many additions we might get if a few more of us keep fiddling!  His passion lives in us with certainty.

As for your comments, your are correct on all points:

1. As demonstrated it IS a 2:1 MA system (and I knew that) but I stated it incorrectly.  Let me rephrase: it is a 2:1 MA system, HOWEVER, if a climber is the LOAD on the system and also the entity pulling force on the line, that climber will gain a 3:1 mechanical advantage. Specifically, (and neglecting friction), when the climber is at rest, half of the weight is absorbed by each side of the SHH.  But, when the climber grips the slack working end, and puts more than 1/3 of body weight on it, leaving slightly less than 1/3 weight on the other lines, they begin to ascend.  Also, in the video, if I were to have taken the pull line back down thru the lower carabiner (out of view until the end) and again through the top carabiner again, it would become 4:1 system, and 5:1 if I am the load.  I realize that these ratios are theoretical and friction is real, but I have done some tests lifting some heavy objects.  I also have some alternate riggings for the MA system, some which load the toggle, and some which do not.

2. I am familiar with the term "progress capture", and agree it is more accurate, and I will try to steer my commentary in that direction in future communications.  For example, the Garda Hitch is a device I use extensively, and believe it is properly described as a progress capture device, and I have used that term in my video on how to use it to build a foot loop for climbing  (Incidentally, I introduced a simple knot in that video which is not in the book a variation of the bull hitch, tied in webbing).  For whatever reason, the arborist community uses the "auto tending" term frequently, as that is where I picked it up. 

3. Yes similar to Cat's Paw, but clearly different.  I don't have any immediate plans to pursue that method to increase the security of the hitch, with preference to wrapping around both members (like ABOK #1920), but I also thought it was worthy of mention.  After all, none of those variants are in ABOK. 

4.  "Soft toggle" sounds right, as does "slipped soft toggle".

And so the only thing I believe we may disagree on is how much confusion I would get if I start calling it the Saddle Hunter's Hitch.  I asked the question to a large group of my peers in a discussion forum, and none thought it would be confused with Hunter's Bend.  The 3 variants I have immediate use for are:
The Saddle Hunter's Hitch
The Saddle Hunter's Hitch with remote release (uses a slipped soft toggle)
The Saddle Hunter's Hitch with loaded toggle

KC

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 367
Re: Saddle Hunter's Hitch? or a named knot already?
« Reply #12 on: June 11, 2021, 10:45:45 AM »
IF the climber is own load/lifting self in bight from end then is 3/1 over own bodyWeight as extended dumbwaiter version.
>>are now playing with not just number of outputs divided by number of inputs for MA
>>but rather now adding shift of force between endpoint(s) and arc(s) for compound effect of that change type.
IF climber pulls on single end against another load in bight is 2/1; 2xEffort up to bodyWeight over load
BUT, if climber hangs on end and reaches over to closest leg of bight to load and pulls up on load :
2xBodyweight  +
4xEffort
Against load.
If hold arm stiff to bight directly on load, and do leg lift into loop or cam on end as input instead of bend arm effort input
That is 4xLegLift + 2xBodyWeight  - frictions - any indirectness of input or output to machine pivot(s)
>>ALSO lift hand on bight DIRECTLY to load that adds 2x pull right to load bight is raw/unfiltered/no preceding frictions of 2xLegLift !!
>> GAME CHANGER ALERT !
Just as climber can't pull down against self to lift own self w/o lightening up load side to use that force then for pull
>>just as well can't pull up on the leg to bight on load, w/o making self 'heavier' on end of line also !
>>tree DdRT is a 2/1 over self - friction therefore as opposed to SRT 1-1 w/o friction
.
Similarly can get 8x out of standard 5x compression jig, just as can extrude 4x from standard 3x compression jig
>> increase in 'closing' system is always 2x Greater End Potential - 2 when 'close' system thus to more efficient
AND instead of being 1xInput to 2x and 3x points for Trucker's etc. (1 as output 1 as machine/pivot)
>>is now 1xInput to 4x and 4x points so can use as lift or compress jig equally.
>>the 'closed' system must now have equal force on ends, when before it could not in standard 'open' system.
>> GAME CHANGER ALERT !
The math is simply there to tap/conjure/extrude/allow/enforce hiding n plain sight like maple syrup !
>>use Equal & Opposite rule as a more then recursive input, conserving forces/to fold them more against target
( Topic: Conserving Pulley Forces for More Output  /Link )
.
Friction Hitch progressive capture/comb/tender/grooming takes a makes Friction Hitch more like cam
>>1 way, w/1 less hand needed
.
Any single pull across SPart slides up closest to host for more grip, but then bends SPart as a support column more in trade.
>>This 180 Turn around SPart is a 1D pull lateral cross-axis ACROSS SPart as a support column
>>another 360 gives a 2D presents: 1D partially across SPart some of which is now converted to 1D along SPart
>>so now a 2D pull
Pull along SPart instead of across is more splice, Bull, Cat's Paw, RT + fig8, rappel rack etc. like
>>TOTAL departure from single 180 hook around SPart shearing across harshest.
Note: only so much force and tensile, as gain back SPart pristine strength, lose some grip on host in trade
>>Thus fave lesson#1669 Fig8 after RT on SPart, shows RT on a SPart, then not a HH in worst nip lace now worser, but rather more fig.8(Lesson#1666) Nip style/strategy with 2 tucks that previously defines fig8 Timber-esque(Lesson#1668) .  1st tuck jsut a spacer to me, to place final tuck in harsher Nip zone.
Due to Turns on SPart, pulling farther away from host/more along SPart , Nip is much worser onload side of host, until the 180 opposing arc on opposite side of host.
.
The ONLY ropePart that gives COMPOUND nip or grip is the 180 arc form etc.
>>and real grip in opposing/antagonistic pairs
To the benchmark 1D cosine of linear run of line, ONLY cross-axis, lateral sine gives seating for potential frictions and grips.
A pure linear ropePart thus gives no rope control of friction, seating nor grip, just hold load @100% efficiency, pure cosine , no sine
Bent linear gives TRACE controlling frictions and in opposing pairs some grip, loss of some efficiency to gain other utilities
>>so cosine (efficiency)drops some, sine raises reciprocally
Even a 90 degree ropePart gives trace/nominal frictions, grips etc.
EXCEPT 180 arc compounds to use BOTH cosine(the major force that is holding load) and sine(deflected force) TOGETHER in seating to host for COMPOUND frictions and grips(when in opposing pairs, trace grip singly from sines of the opposing 90s in 180).
.
In the grab on host/been looking at grab on SPart;
i see double bearing for load wear /chafe  division/sharing
but NOT 2D support structure against side force so much.
>> as holds load, but not grip host firm all around
>>especially in stringer position of more teepee/less flat across positioning of carabiner farther from host; especially on larger host.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2021, 12:18:57 PM by KC »
"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" -Sir Francis Bacon
We now return you to the safety of normal thinking peoples.
~ Please excuse the interruption; thanx -the mgmt.~