Josh vs. MMA Judging

The sport of Mixed Martial Arts is an ever evolving platform for the ultimate test of hand-to-hand combat in the sporting world. There can be no denying that the sport is enjoying more popularity now than it ever has in the past. Each show seems to sell out faster than the last and in a new record time. Fans line up by the thousands to purchase tickets for live events and it has gotten to the point where we, as viewers, can now watch every single fight on the card if we have the problem outlets. MMA is definitely at an all time high and growing.

While the sport is evolving, however, there is an aspect of this sport that seems to constantly come under question; the judging. While judging in all sports finds itself the center of controversy, it seems to be more pronounced in MMA. Without question, the in touch MMA fan can usually find a tweet per show from Dana saying something to the effect of “that was bullshit [insert name here] was robbed.” Yes, Dana’s mantra is “don’t leave it in the hands of the judges,” but as I have come to realize, this is more the case because he hates the current judging system.

If one were to examine an MMA forum board after an event, they will undoubtedly encounter a thread with “what did you think of the….decision?” These threads are often the most fun to read (and aggravating to participate in) because there’s no general consensus on how fights should be scored. The Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts was supposed to be a clear-cut template by which judges were to refer prior to scoring the bouts. That being said, the interpretations by the various different judges have led to a litany of discussions about refinement of the rules. California has decided to incorporate the half-point scoring system into amateur bouts in 2011. With any hope, this will be a growing trend.

Many people have different problems with the judging criteria. The judges are required to score fights based on the following: Clean strikes, effective grappling, octagon control, and effective aggressiveness. These all seem like relatively simple criteria, but the problem is rooted in the wording. Clean striking if often difficult to examine due to the shape and angles of the octagon. Some states have recently begun using monitors so that the judges can have a clearer look of the action inside the cage from different angles. Clean striking is also a subjective term. More often than not, judges will use visual aids to determine who got the better of the exchanges during a round. For instance, if one fighter is completely busted up in the face while the other fighter looks like he stepped out of the shower or has minor swelling, the judges will usually award the round accordingly. However, in closely contested rounds where the striking appeared even, even the appearance of blood can sway the round away from a fighter.

This leads to the question of efficient striking vs. effective striking. Does a fighter who throws 25 jabs in a round landed 23 of them deserve the round over a fighter who threw 10 jabs, landing 7, and 3 uppercuts, dropping his opponent once and wobbling him a second time? How does one score that round? The higher volume of strikes was thrown by the efficient striker, but the greater damage was done by the effective striker. Both gameplans have their merits. Georges St. Pierre all but jabbed his was to a unanimous victory over Josh Koscheck at UFC 124. There was absolutely no question as to who the winner of this fight was by the end of the fight. Koscheck had a broken orbital bone and his eye was swollen shut while GSP looked like he had just entered the cage. In this particular instance, the jab routine was an effective gameplan. Conversely, Martin Kampmann’s fight with Diego Sanchez saw Kampmann putting on a striking clinic against Diego. Sanchez was dropped early and often from a battery of technical striking and range showed by Kampmann. By the end of the fight, Kampmann had outlanded Diego 97-45. Diego managed to steal a round with a rather uneventful take-down. Which, by the way, Diego was 1-15 on his takedown attempts during that fight, so if you were judging the fight properly, Kampmann clearly won on clean strikes and effective grappling.

There is another tricky term; effective grappling. If Diego Sanchez was 1-15 in his take-down attempts, shouldn’t Kampmann’s ability to keep the fight where he wanted it for the majority of the fight constitute “effective grappling.” I’m no math major, but landing 7% of your take-downs isn’t exactly an overwhelming majority. Yet, I would be willing to bet that, even though Kampmann popped right back up, the lone take-down, in the entire fight, during the third round, was enough to give Diego that round. The resulting decision saw all three judges scoring the contest 29-28 for Sanchez. Once again, this fight was met with much controversy.

There are fights, however, that generally blow your mind. Those fights where one judge seems to be the outlier and you wonder, what fight did they watch? Phan-Garcia from The Ultimate Fighter 12 Season Finale comes to my mind for these fights. Adalaide Byrd and Tony Weeks scored the fight 29-28 for Garcia, while Kamijo gave the nod to Phan 30-27. At a first glance you might think that Kamijo was watching a completely different fight than the other two judges and gave an incorrect score…you’d be wrong. It was the OTHER two judges watching a different fight than Kamijo and BOTH gave an incorrect score. Nevada State Athletic Commission’s executive director, Keith Kizer, personally attended the event and scored the fight 30-27 for Phan. The worst part about this entire situation is that Kamijo was the newcomer. Byrd and Weeks are longtime officials with the NSAC. How did the newcomer score the fight just like the rest of the world and the athletic director and the two longtime officials score it incorrectly? What exactly were they watching? The world may never know, but Kizer said he planned to re-watch the contested bout, and if necessary, sit down with Weeks and Byrd. No further developments surfaced.

Simply put, there’s a clear case for the need to revamp the judging system within MMA. It’s hard to imagine another sport dealing with these sorts of issues at the officiating level. Can you imagine if Ed Hochuli and Jerome Boger scored an NFL game 29-28 Packers, while Jeff Triplette scored the game 30-27 in favor of the Vikings? Oh wouldn’t that make NFL games so much more exciting? It would definitely add a little flavor to those conference rivalries. There’s many suggestions on how to revamp the scoring system within MMA and I’m not here to advocate any of them in particular, but rather to say simply and matter-of-factly, it needs to happen…soon.

Josh vs. The CSAC

As controversial and opinionated as Chael Sonnen is, the man got hosed by the California State Athletic Commission. George Dodd and the CSAC issued a ruling against Sonnen Wednesday, May 18^th that the his license is suspended until May 18th, 2012. The future seemed grim for Sonnen until the CSAC, caused by their own ineptitude, realized they had applied the wrong ruling to Sonnen's case. Because his license was never revoked in the first place, only suspended, he is free to reapply for a fighter's license on June 30^th, 2011.

Sonnen elevated testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio after his fight with Anderson Silva on August 7^th, 2010. He served a 6 month suspension and paid a $2,500 fine. The issue with the CSAC is that Sonnen’s suspension was reduced because he was taking testosterone as part of an “approved use exemption” and that Nevada was aware of this. NSAC director Keith Kizer denied approving or knowing about Sonnen’s treatments. This ultimately led California to “indefinitely” suspend Sonnen.

Why is this bullshit? Because Sonnen has basically already served a year’s suspension and paid his fine. He’s 9 months removed from his last fight and the CSAC is saying that he is “indefinitely” suspended. While he’s free to apply for a new license on June 30^th, if the commission denies him this license he cannot reapply for another year. At 34 years of age, this effectively all but retires Sonnen from the sport. Due to his recent legal troubles Sonnen’s primary source of income is the UFC. The CSAC has decided to “indefinitely” take that away from him because they felt that “he was less than truthful” at his last appeal.

“Less than truthful,” let’s examine that statement Mr. Dodd. How truthful have Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Mark McGuire, and Sammy Sosa been? They haven’t been very truthful. How truthful has Lance Armstrong been about his usage? Hell, people are still coming forward saying they saw him use steroids. Mr. Dodd, regardless of what you or the CSAC believe, Sonnen does not NEED to admit to anything, he only needs to pay his fine and serve his suspension. An individual can be convicted of a criminal offense, never admit to it, and still serve his sentence and continue on with his life.

You’ve chosen to hold Sonnen’s career hostage until you’re satisfied. Josh Barnett has tested positive twice for steroids and yet, he continues to find work. Your ruling on Sonnen all but ensures that other State Athletic Commissions would uphold his suspension and deny him a license. Barnett simply has to pass a drug test and he will be issued a license. While I’m aware that Barnett has yet to be licensed by the CSAC, it has not impeded him from finding work.

Antonio Margarito and his trainer put plaster of Paris in his gloves and was only suspended a year by the CSAC. This is far more egregious than being “less than truthful.” In addition to this, it was found that Margarito’s wraps in other fights contained the same stains as those left after his Mosley fight. Where was Margarito’s “indefinite suspension?” It’s clear that the CSAC has some unresolved issues with Chael Sonnen that are clearly not related to these testosterone ratios. Perhaps the CSAC felt that the court’s punishment wasn’t good enough and added their own, I don’t know. What I do know is that the CSAC’s not consistent with their punishments. If the CSAC wants to send a message, up Sonnen’s suspension to a full year and increase his fine to something similar to that of Thiago Silva. Hermes Franca and Sean Sherk both received one year suspensions for failing drug tests. To this day Sherk has not admitted to his positive test. He denies any wrong-doing, but he’s been allowed to fight and was not issued an “indefinite suspension.”

The CSAC refused to hear Matt Lindland’s statements about having conversations with Kizer. Kizer said “he didn’t recall” having conversations with Lindland about Sonnen’s treatments and that he “think[s] [he’d] remember that.” Because of Kizer’s insistence that Lindland was lying, despite the fact that Dr. Czarnecki insisted that nobody outside of, UFC physician, Jeff Davidson had told Sonnen or his team that he needed to take special measures for this legitimate treatment. The CSAC has conveniently ignored any and all evidence that would shed light on the fact that this was a mistake and won’t happen again. Instead they’ve strapped on their jackboots and have decided to do to Sonnen what they have failed to do to any other fighter that has committed more serious offenses.

The CSAC is in the wrong here and they’re being unreasonable with their punishment. This is the first blemish on Sonnen’s fight career and they’re acting like he was a repeat offender. In 37 professional fights all over the globe, Sonnen has committed one offense and the CSAC has chosen to hold his career hostage. This is a gross miscarriage of justice and something the CSAC ought to be ashamed of and rectify. Sonnen deserves to make a living regardless of what the CSAC thinks the criminal court system should have done. Sonnen’s legal troubles are of no consequence to the CSAC and they have been dealt with in the proper setting and venue. Additional punishment from the CSAC is unwarranted and ought to be met with swift and appropriate action. Let Sonnen fight, California. The fans want him back, the sport needs him back, and he deserves to come back. Pick a punishment and stick with it. Denying him a license for another year is unprecedented and ridiculously inconsistent. The CSAC should be ashamed.

Josh vs. The BCS Part 1

Overview of the Problem

The Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is a 501(c)(3) system used in NCAA college football as a means to determine their national champion. The BCS is comprised of the Fiesta Bowl, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, and BCS National Championship Game. The system is not without controversy; however, while many feel that the system does not actually determine a “true” national champion, this will not be the focus of this memorandum. It must be mentioned that many people do not feel that the system works because of how the system is currently abusing taxpayers’ trust with its exorbitant and egregious misusage of funds. The BCS is grossly misusing taxpayers’ dollars and violating its status as a non-profit organization which is supposed based on charitable contributions. The BCS needs to have its non-profit status revoked or there needs to be a massive overhaul in the oversight of expenditures being written off as tax-exempt.

Problem Statement

It is the belief of these authors that the Bowl Championship Series has violated the requisites for a non-profit organization in such a manner that it no longer deserves this status. The BCS has violated its fiduciary duty and misappropriated a large sum of funds that came from honest and hard-working taxpayers and spent funds on items that have no business being recompensed by those taxpayers. According to Davidson (2011), the Fiesta attempted to “reimburse $46,539 in improper campaign contributions” (p. 1). Additionally, Staples (2011), states that Fiesta Bowl CEO John Junker had a “$1,241.75 excursion in September to a gentleman’s club called Bourbon Street with a bowl employee and a consultant” (p. 1). These items are but a few of the frivolous expenditures that were reimbursed as a result of their non-profit status. Despite the fact that, as a non-profit organization, these bowls are required to submit federal documentation regarding their expenditures and reimbursements, these organizations are allowed to submit fairly ambiguous reports which allow them to disguise their hidden spending without fear of reprisal. According to Wetzel, Peter, & Passan (2010), an expense report filed to the IRS from the Sugar Bowl in 2005, ’06 and ’07 included the following: “$455,781 on ‘special appropriations’ in 2006, $201,226 on ‘gifts and bonuses in 2007, and $260,062 on ‘other expenses’ in 2007” (p. 28). These vague descriptions of expenditures have not been called into question until the recent internal investigation conducted by the Fiesta Bowl in 2011 alleging impropriety. These expenditures were written off as tax-exempt due to the current 501(c)(3) status enjoyed by the bowls currently aligned as BCS designates.

Issues

The issues addressed in this memorandum with regard to non-profit tax exemption and the misuses thereof are: misuse of taxpayer revenue, lack of in-depth federal oversight during expense reporting process, and the economic impact vis-à-vis bowl reimbursements and charitable donations in the name of a non-profit organization.

Misuse of taxpayers’ revenue: The Fiesta Bowl is presently under investigation for their gross misuse of funding for a non-profit organization. After the Arizona Republic blew the lid on the misappropriation of funds carelessly spent on personal agendas rather than for the interest of the bowl’s goals and objectives, an internal investigation into the expenditures of the Fiesta Bowl was conducted in March of 2011. The results were a 276 page public report detailing every expenditure made by the Fiesta Bowl and its executives. According to Cain (1999), “when applying the UBTI (unrelated business taxable income) to any potential non-profit direct marketing activity, the non-profit marketer and/or tax advisor must keep in mind the tax-exempt organization’s goals regarding the activity” (p. 328). The excuse provided by John Junker with regard to his gentleman’s club expenditures was outlined in Murphy and McKnight (2011), when he said “We are in the business where big strong athletes are known to attend these types of establishments. It was important for us to visit and we certainly conducted business” (p. 1). Surely a visit to a strip qualifies as an unrelated business taxable income, right? Wrong, these expenses were reimbursed, in full, to the CEO.

Lack of in-depth oversight federal oversight: When submitting their reports to IRS these bowls currently enjoy a rigor-free, superficial, expense reporting process. Bowls are capable of filing these expenditures under pseudonym categories which may or may not even exist. According to Wetzel et al (2010), “the Sugar Bowl has an actual ‘committee on golf’ and a ‘special committee on ladies’ entertainment’—which may or may not have anything to do with all those liaisons” (p. 28). None of these committees designated by the bowls have been questioned until the recent investigation of the Fiesta Bowl. These committees are assumed to be bowl related and have not, until now, received scrutiny regardless of how ambiguous the filed report may have seemed. The college bowl system, on the whole, enjoys the luxury of vague reporting techniques to disguise their expenses to the federal government. These expenses are unacceptable from any taxpayers’ standpoint and in-depth oversight could prevent such erroneous spending.

Economic impact vis-à-vis bowl reimbursements and charitable contributions: Because the major bowls enjoy state and federal subsidies there is an undoubted economic impact that takes place. Derrick Fox, the CEO of the Alamo Bowl testified before congress about the nature of the bowl’s current non-profit status. According to Wetzel et al (2010), Fox testified that “up to one-quarter of the proceeds from the games are dedicated to the community” (p. 26). Furthermore, Wetzel et al (2010) state that the “Sugar Bowl, for instance, received $3 million in direct funding from the Louisiana state government, according to its 2008 tax filing” and that the bowl:

gave nothing. Not a buck to the Hurricane Katrina reconstruction effort. Not a dime to a New Orleans after-school program. Not a penny to Habitat for Humanity. The Sugar Bowl, one of the richest bowls in existence, didn’t give back 25 percent of its proceeds to the community. It hogged everything, including the $3 million in taxpayers’ money (p. 27).

The bowl received its funding from the citizens of Louisiana yet did not give one cent back to those citizens. A city facing severe economic crisis funded a bowl to the tune of $3 million dollars and that bowl did nothing to improve the current situation.

Solutions

Addressing these concerns is actually rather rudimentary. The federal government and state governments, as the financiers for these bowls, need to conduct two audits of these bowls. One of them prior to the distribution of funds is requiring the bowls to detail how they intend to spend the money along with the previous year’s expenses. Then, a secondary audit which closely analyzes every penny spent as a “bowl expense.” No longer can these financiers accept expense report statements title “other expenses” and such. These bowl executives need to account for exactly where this money is being spent and how it is being spent. Additionally, testifying before congress that these bowls are charitable when they are, in fact, not donating what they claim to be donating. According to Wetzel et all (2010), “of the 23 tax-exempt bowls the total payout to charities: a combined $3.2 million dollars” (p. 29). The state of Louisiana donated $200,000 less than the combined payout of 23 tax-exempt bowls. This is simply unacceptable. If these bowls are testifying before Congress that they are, indeed, charitable groups, then Congress ought to have the luxury of holding them accountable for these statements. Bowls receiving public funding ought to be required to give back to the public. Their donations need to be documented and included in their expense reports to the IRS. Bowls that fail to comply with this should have their non-profit status revoked.

Conclusion

In sum, federal regulatory procedures need to be increased and implemented into non-profit organization law to ensure that this type of fleecing cannot continue. While not-for-profit organizations undoubtedly are not “non-profit” in the traditional sense of the term, these profits need to be closely micro-managed and evaluated to ensure that the public is not funding visits to strip clubs and golf resorts. A federal or Congressional oversight committee that closely monitors the expenditures of these bowls addresses two of our three concerns. Lastly, the implementation of charitable donations and reimbursements for expenses needs to be stressed. One cannot perjure themselves before Congress by saying they are a charitable organization when they have given back only $200,000 more as an entire entity than one of their bowls received in general public funding.

An Open Letter From Wile E. Coyote to ACME Products

To: ACME Products

From: Wile E. Coyote

Re: Product Line

Date: 4-20-2011

To Whom It May Concern:

I have been a loyal user of ACME products for about as long as I can remember, but it is time for me to express my utter disgust with your product. For far too long your company, which has had no problem taking my fucking money mind you, has shipped me substandard products that have failed me countless times. I have had it. Your shitty products have cost me my main goal in life; capture that fucking bird and eat him, one too many times. Need examples? I'd be happy to provide them for you.

Let's start with those fucking death-traps you refer to as "rocket powered skates." Do they work? All except for the brakes! The braking systems of those things fail to kick in every time. Do you know what happens as a result of this? I shoot right past that god-damned bird and, inevitably, fly off a fucking cliff, plummeting to my doom. You'd think after years of market research you could have addressed this glitch. It is, after all, DEADLY!!!!! Do you think Ford continued to sell Explorers with Bridgestone tires on them after they fucking blew up and killed people? No! They immediately did a recall to get those dangerous pieces of shit off the road.

This isn't even the half of it, however. How about your god damned "Batman outfit?" Yeah, you remember that one; the one where the fucking WINGS FALL OFF!? Please explain to me how this is supposed to aid me hunting when it's basic purpose, FLYING, is faulty? While I'll admit that the outfit itself is a rather stupid idea for hunting roadrunner, I still expect this product to work.

Oh, now to the "dehydrating boulder." This motherfucker's a real gem. Low and behold, you've made a product that actually works. There's just one problem; it doesn't do anything except crush ME! The son of a bitch only actually expands and crushes something when it's me. Good lord, can you make one fucking product that works on the roadrunner? Lord knows it's not the "earthquake pills."

Don't even get me started on your TNT and rockets. Those things explode on me if I look at them wrong. I don't think I've ever blown up anything besides my own ass using your dynamite. Not one fucking stick of dynamite has ever detonated when that damn bird is around, but let me walk over for one second to examine the situation and check the fusing and connections and BOOM!!!!! I'm farting bomb fragments out my ass for the next six weeks.

Due to your ineptitude and unwillingness to recall and correct the problems with your products, I have retained the services of a lawyer. Enclosed you will find every receipt and shipping order from my purchases of your dog-shit excuse of brand. Additionally, I've also included hospital bills and medical expenses that have resulted from your negligence. I have decided to take my business elsewhere and sincerely hope that one of your faulty products causes an rather timely demise to your manufacturing plant. But just in case, I've placed every last remaining ACME product I've purchased into a box that should find its way into your office in about ten minutes.

In sum: Fuck you....and yours.

Wile E. Coyote.

An Open Letter to John Steigerwald

To Whom It May Concern:

John Steigerwald, a Observer-Reporter.com journalist, recently wrote an article about the tragic incident at Dodger Stadium where Bryan Stow was unmercifully beaten by several men at a game. The results of this beating have left Stow in a coma with portions of his skull missing. Steigerwald, with all the class and dignity a human being could muster, has decided to place the onus of the beating on Stow himself. In Steigerwald's Sunday "contribution," and I use that term VERY loosely, to Observer-Reporter.com, he opined the the following:

"It's probably safe to say that the two "Dodgers" were high on something or things, but somewhere in their sick, juvenile minds, they probably also thought they were doing their duty as Dodger fans.

They were protecting Dodger turf.

Just before he was beaten to within an inch of his life, Stow texted some friends and said that he was "scared inside the stadium."

Maybe someone can ask Snow, if he ever comes out of his coma, why he thought it was a good idea to wear Giants' gear to a Dodgers' home opener when there was a history of out-of-control drunkenness and arrests at that event going back several years.

Remember when it was the kids who were wearing the team jerseys to games? It was a common sight to see an adult male coming through the turnstile dressed as a regular human being with a kid dressed in a "real" jersey holding his hand.

Cute.

Are the 42-year-olds who find it necessary to wear their replica jerseys to a road game, those kids who are now fathers who haven't grown up?

Are there really 40-something men who think that wearing the jersey makes them part of the team? It was cute when a 10-year-old kid got that feeling by showing up at Three Rivers Stadium in a Pirates jersey, but when did little boys stop growing out of that?

Here's tip for you if you actually think that wearing your team's jersey makes you a part of the team:

It doesn't."

You have got to be kidding me? Aside from the fact that you misspelled Stow’s name, you have, somehow, decided that Bryan was responsible for the actions that befell him. Here is a man who has dedicated his life to saving other individuals, but you’re blaming him for wearing a Giants jersey to a Dodger game simply because of his age? Ageism aside, Stow is in no way, shape, or form responsible for the brutal assault he endured at the hands of some savages simply because he chose to support his team.

I find it absurd, John that, in this economy, you find yourself receiving a paycheck for disseminating this sort of bile. Bryan Stow is a hard working citizen who decided to attend a baseball game as a form of leisure. I am sure that several things crossed his mind as he adorned his Giants jersey before the game. Being beaten within an inch of his life was, probably, not one of them.

John, I hate to break it to you, but people shouldn’t have to worry about fear of reprisal for wearing the opposing team’s jersey to an away game. That’s not how a civil society operates. Human beings are complex creature and one of the complexities that makes us unique is our ability to reason and process situations.

Deontology, something with which I’m sure you’re unfamiliar, is a branch of ethics dealing with moral obligation and duty. You know those basic tenants most journalists subscribe to? Those other citizens at Dodger stadium have a moral duty to conduct themselves with a modicum of dignity and civility toward their fellow man. I hate (actually I don’t, I relish it) to tell you this, but wearing an opposing team’s jersey does not infringe upon the basic human rights that are afforded us. The savage beating that Stow received, however, most certainly violated his basic human rights.

You seemed to have glossed over these facts with the sort of bravado that allowed Don Imus to refer to the valiant women of Rutgers University as “nappy headed ho’s.” Never in the history of our society has it been acceptable to beat and maim human beings for what they wear. If this had been a gay man, in a straight community, that was wearing a gay pride shirt and had been beaten for doing so, would you be so quick to blame the victim for his assault?

Call it what you want to call it, but these sorts of actions border on the “hate crime” territory. While I realize that sporting affiliation is not a protected category under the current statute, being savagely beaten for the open support of something ought to be sufficient enough to qualify as hatred. Someone that would intentionally harm another human being because of their intense dislike for something they support is, in fact, hatred.

I’m going to bring your attention to a similar case. Brian Thomas, a Longhorns fan, was nearly castrated at a bar in Norman, Oklahoma for wearing a Texas shirt in “Sooner territory.” Do you know what an attorney had to say about the very same ignorant argument you’re making? Here, I’ll tell you.

"I've actually heard callers on talk radio say that this guy deserved what he got for wearing a Texas T-shirt into a bar in the middle of Sooner country," said Irven Box, an attorney in this city 20 miles from Oklahoma's campus in Norman.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296466,00.html#ixzz1JLbonv8T

There’s an implied ignorance with this line of thinking. Many Sooners fans I know, as well as Dodger fans, found these actions grotesque and unwarranted. People do not “deserve” to be beaten and mauled because they support their team. It doesn’t matter how old they are.

Bryan Stow has two children. They may never have their dad back in the capacity they knew him before this assault. That does not seem to matter to you. All you’ve chosen to focus on is that he wore the “wrong jersey” at the “wrong game.” I sincerely hope that this man’s family insists upon you saying this garbage in person with your supervisor present.

I cannot fathom how you find work, John Steigerwald. While I respect the freedom of the press, I think it’s a bit absurd that any self-respecting journalistic outlet would employ an insensitive half-wit such as yourself. Please do the journalistic world a favor and quit publishing this garbage.

Sincerely,

Josh Webb.