What’s the motivation?

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:24 am

Hi Tim,

I am just addressing your answers to my post. Although I share some similar views to Rob, I don't want our posts to get mixed up.

Quote:

If a person starts training something for self defence but then continues to train for other reasons, how is this a disservice? I’m nearly sure I’ve never even talked to somebody who’s main motivation for continuing to train long term was SD. Even you guys, for all the talk about SD, its obvious it is not the main reason you train.

Agreed, but if someone joins for self-defence, if their priority is self-defence, then surely this the first thing they should learn. If it is not, then that is another matter. I do train for reasons outside self-defence, but I also review self-defence on a regular basis.

Quote:

Much debate about self defence training I presume? I have no idea to be honest, I don’t train in a SBG gym, although I have trained with John Kavanagh a good few times, and I have spent some time training in Karl’s place. From from my limited experience in these places guys are more interested in just getting good at work they are doing, be that BJJ, boxing, wrestling etc. I would doubt that most of the people training in these gyms care one way or the other all that much about “self defence”, but that is just my opinion. But we are talking about large full time gyms, I'm sure there's probably plenty of different opinions on the matter.

To be honest, Tim, that was me going a tad off-topic. SBG's methods appear to encourage research, individuality, honesty and scepticism. However, I haven't read much in the way of diversity. Even slang like the term "goofy" is repeated by members to describe the weird world of martial arts. If you look at sports associations, scientists, historians etc. the world that I and the SBG like draw association with, you will see a tremendous amount of diversity and debate. My BJJ coach, Braulio Estima, invites debate in our classes and both he and one of his brown belts recently had a polite open debate regarding a certain type sweep.

Please excuse the anecdotal bit here, but just the other day I heard from an instructor who recently attended a Matt Thornton seminar and was shocked by their recent shift away from other "alive" arts like Muay Thai and other full contact strike-based arts. He said it appeared that the crux of the argument was that BJJ was the best system to practice due to the fact that you could train full on with minimum risks (not taken into account the fatal damage prolonged chokes can do to the carotid artieries). Were you aware of this change in direction?

Quote:

What the “myth” that learning to fight might help you if you ever need to fight? I have used my skills in real encounters working security. I have never one any training but a few to working in security and have never done any security training of any kind. Yet all the ‘sport’ stuff came to my rescue and I had no problem at all transferring these skills to a non-sport environment.

I am not anti-sport. MMA is a superb form of "attribute training" that I and my students regulalry engage in. However, if that is the sole basis of your training you are only really training for one type of fight: the match fight, then you are only training in one dimension. It's a bit like training only one range for MMA. It might get a fighter through a few fights, but is it really realistic not to explore the other equally vital ranges? Forget the fact that the dynamic of fighting one than one person is very different from a one-on-one confrontation, the main difference between a "match fight" and any other type assault is that both protagonists are consenting fighters. The conditioning of match fighting is great for toughening you up if a fight is not over in a short length of time. That is of bugger all use if you fall for the old "got the time mate?" WALLOP! A tactic I hasten to add has felled a few pro boxers by far "lesser" fighters.

tim · Member Number of posts: 70 Registration date: 2008-08-07

Quote:

Even slang like the term "goofy" is repeated by members to describe the weird world of martial arts

In fairness, goofy would be an accurate enough term for a lot of the stuff that’s out there.

Quote:

If you look at sports associations, scientists, historians etc. the world that I and the SBG like draw association with, you will see a tremendous amount of diversity and debate.

Agreed, but again lets me remember (to use your analogy) that the genuine debates is like discussions between Dawkins and Gould, not between scientists and creationists.

Quote:

My BJJ coach, Braulio Estima, invites debate in our classes and both he and one of his brown belts recently had a polite open debate regarding a certain type sweep.

Cool, I debate these type of things with people all the time. It’s one of the advantages of not training in a club with peers as opposed to some black belt who is streets ahead of everybody. People tend to question more, and think more for themselves.

Quote:

Please excuse the anecdotal bit here, but just the other day I heard from an instructor who recently attended a Matt Thornton seminar and was shocked by their recent shift away from other "alive" arts like Muay Thai and other full contact strike-based arts. He said it appeared that the crux of the argument was that BJJ was the best system to practice due to the fact that you could train full on with minimum risks (not taken into account the fatal damage prolonged chokes can do to the carotid artieries). Were you aware of this change in direction?

Different SBG coaches I’ve come across have had a different emphasis. John Kavanagh’s gym in Dublin, whilst it is an MMA gym, has always been mainly BJJ based. I think John’s main passion is BJJ and that is reflected in the gym. On the other hand when I was over in Karl’s a few weeks ago, I trained BJJ, sub wrestling, boxing, muay thai, wrestling and MMA! That’s a pretty broad range by any definition. Most of Matt’s seminars I’ve been to have been mainly bjj based, but not exclusively so.
With regards to risks, in terms of ‘alive’ arts, BJJ is probably the lowest impact on your body, provided you are training smart of course. I’m training for a mma fight at the moment (3 weeks out at this stage!) and there’s no doubt it is tough on the body.

Quote:

I am not anti-sport. MMA is a superb form of "attribute training" that I and my students regulalry engage in.

Define attribute training. I usually use the term attribute to mean physical attributes, strength, speed etc.

Quote:

However, if that is the sole basis of your training you are only really training for one type of fight: the match fight, then you are only training in one dimension.

Not disagreeing with this at all. If I was worried about getting attacked by a gang of people I would train against multiple opponents, but I’m not so I don’t.

Quote:

It's a bit like training only one range for MMA. It might get a fighter through a few fights, but is it really realistic not to explore the other equally vital ranges?

Sure, if somebody is worried about self defence. If not I wouldn’t really bother. Although I suppose a bit of two on one can be a bit of fun an odd time, but its not really a fair match, and the guy on his own tends to lose quite a bit.

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:08 pm

Quote:

In fairness, goofy would be an accurate enough term for a lot of the stuff that’s out there.

Agreed, but that wasn't the point. Symantics are a key feature of cults of personality and a point Matt Thornton has expressed with the way "traditional" martial arts schools often require their students to use the same language terminology being used in their martial art's country of origin. Slang is another way groups bond people and it works in a similar way. In fact, it might be more damaging as at least "official" language does normally invade private life, slang can and does. Just to put you in the picture this is me

Quote:

Agreed, but again lets me remember (to use your analogy) that the genuine debates is like discussions between Dawkins and Gould, not between scientists and creationists.

This is what I was getting at. I haven't seen it in SBG circles yet.

Quote:

Cool, I debate these type of things with people all the time. It’s one of the advantages of not training in a club with peers as opposed to some black belt who is streets ahead of everybody. People tend to question more, and think more for themselves.

People should be encouraged to question. CCMA, which makes self-defence its foundation before moving onto MMA and cross-training, is founded on this type of attitude. In fact, a key area we express is to "find the flaw". Because we are more concerned with pressure-test activities I am always keen to put students in the coaching position and to keep a critical mind. No one is about criticism, no matter how experienced and no matter how good. A mantra of mine is "no one can tell what YOU will do in a real life situation".

Quote:

With regards to risks, in terms of ‘alive’ arts, BJJ is probably the lowest impact on your body, provided you are training smart of course. I’m training for a mma fight at the moment (3 weeks out at this stage!) and there’s no doubt it is tough on the body.

To a certain degree I can agree with you, but not to the virtual total dismissal or phasing out of striking arts, which is what my source implied. Strangely enough I received more (percentage-wise) impact injuries in BJJ than I ever did in my Kickboxing and Muay Thai - and both of these included "fight clubs". Maybe I don't train so smart scratch

Anyway that's beside the point and nitpicking. Many knowledgeable old grappling veterans will not let anyone near their neck for the express reason I outlined. This risks caused by prolonged exposure to strangulation techniques has been known in Judo circles for a long time. There are really two sure ways to stop a man in unarmed fighting - heavy concussive blow to the head and strangulation/choking. Of the two the latter is more likely to cause instant death. The former only usually causes death if the felled person's body strikes something hard when they fall i.e. head on pavement, which is unlikely to happen on a mat or in the ring.

Quote:

Not disagreeing with this at all. If I was worried about getting attacked by a gang of people I would train against multiple opponents, but I’m not so I don’t.

But today's civilian is far more likely to be attacked by more than one person, even if it starts out "one-on-one".

Quote:

Sure, if somebody is worried about self defence. If not I wouldn’t really bother. Although I suppose a bit of two on one can be a bit of fun an odd time, but its not really a fair match, and the guy on his own tends to lose quite a bit.

Who said anything about a "fairness", "losing" or it being a "match". Why martial artists often "lose" in this type of drill is because they try to spar with the people attacking them rather than escape. Escape is the priority for a normal civilian in a self-defence situation. I appreciate that this changes if you are employed in security or in law enforcement, but not that much if your life is completley on the line. Being drawn into a fight is perhaps the biggest flaw with combat sports training being applied to self-defence without alteration. The mentality is totally different.

tim · Member Number of posts: 70 Registration date: 2008-08-07

Quote:

Agreed, but that wasn't the point. Symantics are a key feature of cults of personality and a point Matt Thornton has expressed with the way "traditional" martial arts schools often require their students to use the same language terminology being used in their martial art's country of origin. Slang is another way groups bond people and it works in a similar way. In fact, it might be more damaging as at least "official" language does normally invade private life, slang can and does. Just to put you in the picture this is me

OK, I see what you are getting at now. I’d agree.

Quote:

To a certain degree I can agree with you, but not to the virtual total dismissal or phasing out of striking arts, which is what my source implied.

I’d be pretty sure your source is mistaken. Not everyone wants to get hit the head every night. Many people who go to mma gyms just want to grapple, there’s nothing at all wrong with that. I’d imagine years down the line when I’m sick of getting hit I’ll be doing that.

Quote:

Strangely enough I received more (percentage-wise) impact injuries in BJJ than I ever did in my Kickboxing and Muay Thai - and both of these included "fight clubs". Maybe I don't train so smart

Maybe. Or maybe the sparring was always very competitive? Maybe a lot of the guys training were relying on a lot of strength and power? I mean if you have guys neck cranking you every night yes you are going to get hurt grappling.

Quote:

Anyway that's beside the point and nitpicking. Many knowledgeable old grappling veterans will not let anyone near their neck for the express reason I outlined. This risks caused by prolonged exposure to strangulation techniques has been known in Judo circles for a long time. There are really two sure ways to stop a man in unarmed fighting - heavy concussive blow to the head and strangulation/choking.

True, but again if people are training smart they shouldn’t be choking each other hard in training. You can stop a choke or arm bar etc without really finishing it, as long as people are training smart, just tapping when they get caught as opposed to waiting until it hurts or when they are about to pass out.

Quote:

But today's civilian is far more likely to be attacked by more than one person, even if it starts out "one-on-one".

That might well be the case (I have no idea) but getting attacked on the street is not something that worries me, so I don’t bother training for it, much like the 99.99999% of the population.

Quote:

Why martial artists often "lose" in this type of drill is because they try to spar with the people attacking them rather than escape. Escape is the priority for a normal civilian in a self-defence situation. I appreciate that this changes if you are employed in security or in law enforcement, but not that much if your life is completley on the line. Being drawn into a fight is perhaps the biggest flaw with combat sports training being applied to self-defence without alteration.

Who said anything about applying combat sport training to SD ‘without alteration’? By losing I meant not being able to escape and getting beat on my a few guys.

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:10 pm

Quote:

Maybe. Or maybe the sparring was always very competitive? Maybe a lot of the guys training were relying on a lot of strength and power? I mean if you have guys neck cranking you every night yes you are going to get hurt grappling.

I think you will find that the BJJ club I train at is perhaps one of the most reputable in the UK. It sometimes gets competitive and sometimes not, depending on who you are rolling with. I think there is a lot more hidden impact in BJJ than people realize and you get more contact around the face than you do in strike-based training simply because you are not guarding as such.

Quote:

I’d be pretty sure your source is mistaken. Not everyone wants to get hit the head every night. Many people who go to mma gyms just want to grapple, there’s nothing at all wrong with that. I’d imagine years down the line when I’m sick of getting hit I’ll be doing that.

I hope my source is mistaken as SBG has a lot good things to offer the martial arts world and I have learnt a fair deal from their approach. You have my sympathies a lot people go down the grappling only route as they get older. Nevertheless I would never neglect practicing my bag and, more importantly, pad work (another area I believe Matt disapproves of, could that be an example of something the rest of SBG doesn't endorse?)

Quote:

True, but again if people are training smart they shouldn’t be choking each other hard in training. You can stop a choke or arm bar etc without really finishing it, as long as people are training smart, just tapping when they get caught as opposed to waiting until it hurts or when they are about to pass out.

Unfortunately to train like this all the time in sparring gets us close to the old semi-contact point sparring mentality. It teaches a "you got me" mentality, which isn't great either for competition or self-defence. Even when you are compliantly going through the technique you need to know that it is on. It has to be confirmed and confirmed fairly regularly or you get sloppy technique. The amount of times I have seen white belts (and been there myself) where they have the "shape" but lose the submission because they can't get the vital % in there.

Quote:

That might well be the case (I have no idea) but getting attacked on the street is not something that worries me, so I don’t bother training for it, much like the 99.99999% of the population.

Yes, but out of that population of people who don't train realistic self-defence, how many are the predators, how many are the doorstaff, how many are the streetfighters, how many work in security etc? What I am saying is a fair number (although I consent not the majority) don't train self-defence because they already practice it on a regular basis learnt through the circumstances they are placed. The others... some are victims of all descriptions, others (a good number I agree) are fortunate. There are also a good number of fortunate people who will never need to use swimming to survive (more so than those who will not need some sort of self-defence training) and never need a good 80%+ of the First Aid training they get. And around we come to my First Aid comparison. A good percentage of the population do First Aid courses and come out insufficiently trained hence new concerns that have stripped a lot of the critera taught yet added new areas like defibrilation. Interestingly I was discussing this matter with Dennis Jone (of "Samurai on the Door" fame) yesterday and he said that First Aid once was taught in many schools on a weekly basis.

Rob · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 3:36 pm

The chances of a plane crashing are pretty low - it's the safest form of travel and all. But pilots are still trained in emergency tactics in case thing go badly.

Traveling in your car you still put a safety belt on, right? But the chances of being badly injured in a car accident, are quite low. Does that mean I'm not going to wear a safety belt? Of course not. Because you can't ever say that you wont be involved in some kind of accident.

And the same can be said for most of the people I know, who are just average Joe's. Have all been in some kind of violent confrontation at one point or another.

Hindsight is a great thing...

_________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

tim · Member Number of posts: 70 Registration date: 2008-08-07

Quote:

I think there is a lot more hidden impact in BJJ than people realize and you get more contact around the face than you do in strike-based training simply because you are not guarding as such.

I haven’t experienced this to be honest.

Quote:

I hope my source is mistaken as SBG has a lot good things to offer the martial arts world and I have learnt a fair deal from their approach.

I think its fair to say that SBG will always be an MMA group, not solely a BJJ one.

Quote:

You have my sympathies a lot people go down the grappling only route as they get older. Nevertheless I would never neglect practicing my bag and, more importantly, pad work (another area I believe Matt disapproves of, could that be an example of something the rest of SBG doesn't endorse?)

I don’t know TBH. I know I did plenty of bag work in SBG Manchester anyway.

Quote:

Unfortunately to train like this all the time in sparring gets us close to the old semi-contact point sparring mentality. It teaches a "you got me" mentality, which isn't great either for competition or self-defence.

Not really. I’ll go for an armbar full out in a tough sparring session, I’ll be fighting to get it, the other guy will be trying to escape. Once I have it secured and the hand is straightened we can stop. Obviously that won’t always happen if the guy thinks he can escape but it does a lot of the time. All I’m saying is that you don’t need to yank on a armbar hard ever time, the hard part is securing it, going from having the arm straight to causing pain does not need to be done ever time. I suppose this is something that is done by more experience people than new guys.

Quote:

Even when you are compliantly going through the technique you need to know that it is on. It has to be confirmed and confirmed fairly regularly or you get sloppy technique. The amount of times I have seen white belts (and been there myself) where they have the "shape" but lose the submission because they can't get the vital % in there.

Agreed, this isn’t really what I was talking about though.

Quote:

Yes, but out of that population of people who don't train realistic self-defence, how many are the predators, how many are the doorstaff, how many are the streetfighters, how many work in security etc?

Out of the entire population of say Ireland or England? Pretty small I’d guess.

Quote:

What I am saying is a fair number (although I consent not the majority) don't train self-defence because they already practice it on a regular basis learnt through the circumstances they are placed

A fair number of the population at large? I doubt it.

tim · Member Number of posts: 70 Registration date: 2008-08-07

Quote:

The chances of a plane crashing are pretty low - it's the safest form of travel and all. But pilots are still trained in emergency tactics in case thing go badly.

Traveling in your car you still put a safety belt on, right? But the chances of being badly injured in a car accident, are quite low. Does that mean I'm not going to wear a safety belt? Of course not. Because you can't ever say that you wont be involved in some kind of accident.

Nobody is claiming different. But training SP/SD numerous times a week is not analogous to it for the reasons already given.

Jamie Clubb · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 8:04 pm

Quote:

Quote:
I think there is a lot more hidden impact in BJJ than people realize and you get more contact around the face than you do in strike-based training simply because you are not guarding as such.
I haven’t experienced this to be honest.

I see plenty of black eyes and cut lips in BJJ. The pure nature of grappling means that your head is regular contact with another person.

Quote:

Quote:
You have my sympathies a lot people go down the grappling only route as they get older. Nevertheless I would never neglect practicing my bag and, more importantly, pad work (another area I believe Matt disapproves of, could that be an example of something the rest of SBG doesn't endorse?)
I don’t know TBH. I know I did plenty of bag work in SBG Manchester anyway.

I refer to the famous scene where Matt bins the focus mitts. If you did some bagwork with Karl than I can guess that might be decent evidence of diversity in opinion.

Quote:

Quote:
Unfortunately to train like this all the time in sparring gets us close to the old semi-contact point sparring mentality. It teaches a "you got me" mentality, which isn't great either for competition or self-defence.
Not really. I’ll go for an armbar full out in a tough sparring session, I’ll be fighting to get it, the other guy will be trying to escape. Once I have it secured and the hand is straightened we can stop. Obviously that won’t always happen if the guy thinks he can escape but it does a lot of the time. All I’m saying is that you don’t need to yank on a armbar hard ever time, the hard part is securing it, going from having the arm straight to causing pain does not need to be done ever time. I suppose this is something that is done by more experience people than new guys.

I didn't say anything about yanking a bar or lock on. I often let go once I have the arm or leg secured and straight, sometimes even before the tap, especially if I am rolling with less experienced grapplers. These areas of the body differ considerably to the soft tissue and exposed arteries around the neck. A bar or lock is significantly less dangerous than a choke or strangle, which has been reflected in many different rule-sets children's Judo and BJJ, and sport Sombo (as opposed to Combat Sombo, which MMA with the gi or SD).

Quote:

Quote:
Yes, but out of that population of people who don't train realistic self-defence, how many are the predators, how many are the doorstaff, how many are the streetfighters, how many work in security etc?
Out of the entire population of say Ireland or England? Pretty small I’d guess.

Quote:
What I am saying is a fair number (although I consent not the majority) don't train self-defence because they already practice it on a regular basis learnt through the circumstances they are placed
A fair number of the population at large? I doubt it.

You must be kidding! I now live in a middle class affluent suburb and violence is becoming more and more common. Violence of the recreational type too - groups of people picking on single individuals. At this point it is probably worth mentioning that Ireland's crime is very different in nature than that in England and Scotland. Here is one massively significant difference that puts it more in line with a country like Italy for example: It has not had one single serial killer in its recorded history. England has had record numbers of them. Serial killers may be rare (although statistically they appear to be on the rise as countries become more industrialized), but they are the extreme example of "recreational criminals". What I mean by recreational crime is crime being perpertrated not for aviarice or even obvious signs of rage - crimes committed for the hell of it. Francis Gilbert's "Yob Nation" depicts a steady rise in these types of crime and police testimonies that show although crime statistics are going down, percentage-wise recreational crime is going up. Violence, as can be seen by the trends of happy slapping, steaming etc., is a common outlet for recreational violence. In most cases the criminals are not your usual drunkard who can't finish his Saturday night beer without a good one-on-one out on the green, but packs of people (getting younger all the time) who find it entertaining to attack and intimidate on en masse. From what I have heard and seen, even in my own street, they are caring less for how big or physically intimidating their target is either. In fact, our local powerlifter was victimized for months by one pack of kids.

Rob · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:39 pm

Hmm... I see an impasse here....

Tim, I'm afraid were not really going to agree with you here.

I see self-defense training as important (obviously it's not mandatory). Remember, were all from SP backgrounds, and myself and the other guys are unlikely to change our minds.

Like Jamie, I see things getting quite a bit worse. And I'm not the only one... so do my friends and colleagues. As I keep saying that most of my mates, and lots of people I know, have all been in some form, or potentially dangerous situation on more than one occasion.

So if you're into the training, and it gives you confidence, exercise, skills. I'd always say to people, "go for it".

Most of the guys that have come to me, have all come down because they are afraid (real or imaginary), or have had an experience, and want to take some form of control in the future.

Things are not likely to change anytime soon, no matter what the MMA lads say. There is a demand for self-defense - It's the way things are.

_________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

undercover sceptic · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:58 pm

tim wrote:

Many people claim what they train is relevant for self defence. Others train specifically for self defence. Many (most) martial artists take these motivations are a given. My question is why?

Why spend time training for self defence? Is this logical? Is it rational?

It should first be noted that many claim that they train for self defence but often times this training can be completely unrealistic, other times it’s just a claim people make but don’t back up. They actual just train in their martial art and give very little thought to self defence, but they’ll still put it on their posters when advertising.

In this thread I’m not concerned with the above, but rather with people who actually do genuinely train for self defence. Very often this training can be complete nonsense, but not always so. But effective or otherwise, why do people do it? If a guy lives in a relatively safe suburb of some relatively safe city then the chances of him needing self defence skills are probably quite slim. Yet people like this can still spend hours and hours training their self defence skills? I wonder this honestly because they want to improve their SD skills, and if so why, or if there some other reason.

There would certainly be some circumstances where training for self protection could definitely be justified but I think for the vast majority of people this is not the case.

I wonder if people who do this are really being honest with themselves as to their motivations. You guys in poor physical conditions and there are training ‘for the street’. If they were really worried about self protection then they’d be eating less and exercising more.

Do people do it because they are insecure or have low self esteem? This to me would seem likely at least for some people. Doing self defence training might potentially build confidence and make them feel better about themselves.

Or do others simply enough training but feel they need some justification for doing it? It gives a supposed purpose to training, and isn’t just some hobbie or pastime (many martial artists hate to think of what they do as a hobbie!)

Maybe others like the feeling of empowerment they get from the training. Maybe it makes them feel tough etc

Others here I know do train with self protection in mind so I’d be interested in hearing some opinions.

Tim,
it seems you have had 4 pages of opinions and Rob's final words 'I see an impasse here' seems to tie things up nicely.

We have gave opinions of fear of crime being the main motivating factor!

If this is not logical thats ok, I mentioned earlier fear is not based on logic. You asked for opinion why people sign up for SD training.

You have your opinions on said subject and I suggest you wrap up the thread with that in mind.

If you feel sceptical about this being a major motivating factor please feel free to survey a cross section of practising martial artists, or even just the main self defence guys, Geoff Thompson, Dave Turton, et al, bring their opinions here, present the evidence and go from there.

It's ok to be sceptical but if you wish to continue this thread with the belief fear is not a motivating factor then the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

Two op guys with experience and knowledge gave their opinions, I gave my opinion, there really is nothing more to be said.

If you are sceptical about something else please feel free to start a fresh thread, as enjoyable as this is we are going round in circles and no hard testimonial evidence is forthcoming!

Regards,

Den.

_________________
Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency.
Stephen J Gould

MY BLOG PAGE

Rob · Subject: Re: What’s the motivation? Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:23 am

Good one Den... Think it's about time to cast our skeptical eyes on some other subjects.

Cheers,

R.

_________________
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi