Road Cycling · Public discussion

Showdown Over River

Started by Garrison Hilliard · · Last activity · 22 posts · 721 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
12 November 2006
Last activity
15 November 2006
Original author
Garrison Hilliard
Posts
22
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
721
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 22
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Showdown over a river
    Ohio 32 bridge at Little Miami hinges on court ruling
    BY STEVE KEMME | ENQUIRER STAFF WRITER
    For 105 miles, the Little Miami River snakes through five counties in
    southwestern Ohio before emptying into the Ohio River in Cincinnati.

    But it's a tiny horseshoe bend in the river, a mile north of Lunken Airport,
    that could delay for years a $1.4 billion regional transportation project
    intended to improve transportation between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs.

    Three environmental groups - Rivers Unlimited, Little Miami Inc. and the Sierra
    Club - filed a lawsuit last month in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to
    stop the Eastern Corridor project from moving forward because they don't want a
    multilane highway bridge built across the Little Miami.

    No one knows for certain yet whether the lawsuit will be a pothole or a chasm on
    the project's path to completion.

    "It depends on how the judge rules," said Gilbert Newman, the Ohio regional
    manager for Balke American, the engineering firm hired by the Hamilton County
    Transportation Improvement District to manage the project.

    "A judge could say, 'The lawsuit's premature until we know what specific highway
    route is proposed.' Or he could say, 'Until this lawsuit goes through the
    courts, all work on the project should stop.' "

    Brian Litmans, an attorney representing the three environmental groups, said
    there's no predictable timetable for a court decision.

    "I've handled environmental cases that are resolved in less than a year and
    cases that take longer," he said. "Each court is different."

    Until a judge says otherwise, Balke American continues to prepare for the
    project's second phase. That phase includes choosing a preferred route for an
    expanded and relocated Ohio 32 that would connect Interstate 71 in Fairfax to
    I-275 near the Eastgate Mall in Clermont County's Union Township.

    The reconstructed and relocated Ohio 32 would begin at Red Bank Road and extend
    south, cross the Little Miami and head east through Newtown and Anderson
    Township into the Eastgate area.

    Supporters of the Eastern Corridor project say the highway would relieve traffic
    congestion on such major thoroughfares as Ohio 32, I-275, Clough Pike and Ohio
    125 and would trigger economic development in East Side Cincinnati
    neighborhoods, first-ring eastern Hamilton County suburbs and central Clermont
    County.

    The project has roots dating to the 1950s. At that time, regional planners began
    discussing a bypass to U.S. 50 in the East Side. But in the 1980s, that project
    gave way to a less disruptive option - an improved and reconstructed Ohio 32.

    During the past 35 years, residential and commercial growth in the eastern part
    of Greater Cincinnati has placed more strain on Ohio 32 and other primary
    east-west roads.

    Since 1970, Clermont County's population has doubled to 190,589, while Anderson
    Township's has jumped from 25,887 to nearly 45,000. Commercial development in
    the Eastgate Mall and the Beechmont Avenue corridor also has resulted in
    increased traffic. More than 18,000 vehicles per day travel on Ohio 32 through
    Newtown, according to the state's 2005 traffic count.

    To reduce traffic congestion, the Eastern Corridor project includes not only the
    highway, but also a 17-mile rail transit line, bus transit improvements and bike
    trails.

    Before construction can begin on any part of the project, detailed design plans
    must be developed and approved by federal authorities, right-of-way must be
    acquired and a financial plan must be developed.

    The funding partners in this project are Hamilton County, Clermont County,
    Cincinnati, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments, the
    Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority and the Ohio Department of
    Transportation.

    In a best-case scenario, construction of the 13.5-mile highway - the most
    controversial component of the project - would begin in 2010 and be completed in
    2015, said Ted Hubbard, Hamilton County deputy engineer.

    The three environmental groups contend that building a highway bridge across the
    Little Miami in the area of a horseshoe bend in Linwood would significantly and
    irreparably harm the aesthetic, environmental and recreational value of this
    nationally designated "wild and scenic river."

    "We don't want anything to damage that river," said Mike Fremont, president
    emeritus of Rivers Unlimited and a veteran canoeing enthusiast. "The crossing
    would be in an area that is essentially a park."

    The environmental groups would prefer that an existing bridge, such as the
    Beechmont Levee, be expanded to accommodate the new highway.

    "It will create an air-polluted corridor," he said. "We should be building
    railway corridors, not highways. I don't believe for a minute that the new
    highway will reduce traffic congestion."

    But the project's supporters say the new highway as well as the rail line and
    other elements of the project would alleviate air pollution by reducing the
    number of vehicle miles traveled and easing traffic congestion. Public officials
    who believe their communities would benefit from the highway and the other parts
    of the project are upset about the lawsuit.

    They point out that the Eastern Corridor's long, public planning process
    included the involvement of federal and state agencies. Last year, the project's
    initial plans received the approval of the Federal Highway Administration.

    "This whole region has invested a lot of time and money following federal
    processes for this project," said Martha Kelly, Cincinnati's acting traffic
    engineer. "It takes enough time as it is to build these things. To have to go
    back and revisit processes is very frustrating."

    Anderson Township Trustee Russell Jackson Jr. said he's a strong proponent of
    protecting the Little Miami River. But he said the lawsuit greatly exaggerates
    the proposed bridge's impact on the river.

    Columbia Township Administrator C. Michael Lemon said the environmental groups'
    lawsuit will delay the development of the Wooster Pike corridor in the township.

    Columbia Township wants to make its Wooster Pike business district more visually
    appealing by building a landscaped median. But the Ohio Department of
    Transportation won't permit that until the Eastern Corridor project has been
    built and reduces the traffic volume on Wooster.

    Lemon said the median would help attract businesses.

    Many commuters who regularly fight the traffic on Ohio 32 and other parallel
    roads want relief.

    Amy Willenborg, 37, of Union Township, said the new highway is long overdue.

    "On Ohio 32, traffic is bumper to bumper at rush hour," she said.

    Carl Wells, 34, said traffic congestion discouraged him from buying a house in
    Union Township eight years ago. Instead, he bought a house in Madisonville. He
    said the lawsuit shouldn't be allowed to stop or delay the construction of the
    highway.

    "I'm all for the environment," Wells said, "but the new highway would help
    people get to and from work."

    The expanded Ohio 32 would encourage more motorists from the eastern suburbs to
    use Red Bank Road to get to the eastern Cincinnati neighborhoods, downtown or
    the Mill Creek Valley instead of traveling on other city streets less able to
    handle a high volume of traffic.

    Cincinnati officials also believe it would stimulate light industrial and office
    development in the Red Bank Corridor and lure more businesses to Madisonville,
    Linwood and Oakley.

    "It could really help bring jobs to the city," Kelly said.

    The improved roadway connections with eastern Hamilton County would make daily
    commutes easier for Clermont County residents who work in Hamilton County.

    "It would improve access for the transportation of goods and would provide a
    boost to the economic growth in Clermont County," said Clermont County
    Administrator Dave Spinney.

    In Anderson Township, the expanded Ohio 32 could relieve traffic congestion on
    Beechmont Avenue and Clough Pike and provide a much needed additional route in
    and out of Anderson.

    "Anderson is somewhat of an island," Hubbard said. "If you have a problem on any
    bridge or a detour in Anderson, it results in lengthy and problematic delays."

    In Newtown, the new highway could relieve some of the traffic congestion that
    has plagued this stretch of Ohio 32, known as Main Street, for years and allow
    the village to improve the appearance of this corridor and make it more inviting
    to businesses and customers.

    Newtown Mayor John Hammon said the railway and bus station planned in the
    village as part of the project would draw people there and be a convenience for
    Newtown residents.

    His only concern is that the highway might take too much traffic off Main
    Street.

    "So many of our businesses depend on drive-by traffic," Hammon said. "You can't
    take away all the traffic. There has to be a balance. There are benefits for
    Newtown if the project's done right."

    The new highway would relieve traffic congestion on Wooster Pike in Fairfax,
    Mariemont, Columbia Township and, to a lesser extent, Terrace Park.

    Mariemont Mayor Dan Policastro said it's important to Mariemont for the highway
    to be built far enough away from the Little Miami River that traffic noise
    doesn't bother village residents living on Miami Bluff.

    Some public officials have been hearing about the project for so long, they're
    skeptical whenever a tentative completion date for the highway has been
    announced.

    "I don't think we're going to see this until we're old and on canes," Policastro
    said. "They tell me it'll be built in 10 or 12 years. I'll believe it when I see
    it."

    E-mail [email hidden]
    http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061112/NEWS01/611120348/1056/COL02

  2. Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    Secondly, coping an entire article verbatim is a clear violation of
    copyright. Fair use would require you to quote a small amount from the
    article while providing some actual content of your own. (Like perhaps
    giving us the reason you posted this here in the first place.)

    Cheers,
    David

  3. Garrison Hilliard wrote:

    .... actually he posted an article about promoting sprawl under the
    guise of relieving car traffic congestion via road construction.

    The answer, Garrison, is not to promote more car traffic. You need only
    look at places like Atlanta, GA and Va. Beach, VA to see how more roads
    simply mean exponential increases in car traffic. The answer is to
    redirect the funds into light rail.

  4. "Solvang Cyclist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    Bike trails are proposed as part of the new highway project.

    "the Eastern Corridor project includes not only the
    highway, but also a 17-mile rail transit line, bus transit improvements and
    bike
    trails."

    This might have been clearer if the article had been edited down.

    --
    Mike Kruger
    "Never offend people with style when you can offend them with substance."
    --Sam Brown

  5. Solvang Cyclist said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

  6. Solvang Cyclist said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

  7. Garrison Hilliard wrote:

    <snip quoted article>

    Cross-posted to unrelated groups:

    rec.boats.paddle
    sci.environment
    rec.bicycles.misc

    Austin

  8. Will said about:
    Re: Showdown Over River

    Quoted message said:


    Garrison Hilliard wrote:

    ... actually he posted an article about promoting sprawl under the
    guise of relieving car traffic congestion via road construction.

    Exactly.

    It's worse than a case of permanant environmental
    degradation for mere convienience.
    It's a case of permanant environmental degradation
    for mere temporary convienience.
    (Roads CAUSE long term worse, deeper congestion.)

    Quoted message said:

    The answer, Garrison, is not to promote more car traffic. You need only
    look at places like Atlanta, GA and Va. Beach, VA to see how more roads
    simply mean exponential increases in car traffic.

    But that's merely anecdotal evidence.
    Any unvested city planner worth his salt
    would agree with your proven known facts.
    This is NOT a matter of opinion.
    However, it sounds like the city planner
    in this case is not unvested.

    Most politicians, particularly in ignorant areas,
    are progrowth anti-environment, environmental
    lipservicers.

    Quoted message said:

    The answer is to
    redirect the funds into light rail.

    Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
    or even end growth.
    --Doug

  9. Doug Bashford said:

    Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
    or even end growth.

    It's called snob zoning. It's a well-deserved name.

    Austin

  10. AustinMN said:
    Doug Bashford said:

    Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
    or even end growth.

    It's called snob zoning. It's a well-deserved name.

    Austin

    Oh I get it... telling the "developers" to extract their $$$ somewhere
    else is snobbery.

    Dunno Austin, seems like they get the money and we get the catbox.

  11. Quoted message said:
    Solvang Cyclist said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

    You can say that again!

  12. Doug Bashford said:

    Will said about:
    Re: Showdown Over River

    Quoted message said:


    Garrison Hilliard wrote:

    ... actually he posted an article about promoting sprawl under the
    guise of relieving car traffic congestion via road construction.

    Exactly.

    It's worse than a case of permanant environmental
    degradation for mere convienience.
    It's a case of permanant environmental degradation
    for mere temporary convienience.
    (Roads CAUSE long term worse, deeper congestion.)

    Quoted message said:

    The answer, Garrison, is not to promote more car traffic. You need only
    look at places like Atlanta, GA and Va. Beach, VA to see how more roads
    simply mean exponential increases in car traffic.

    But that's merely anecdotal evidence.
    Any unvested city planner worth his salt
    would agree with your proven known facts.
    This is NOT a matter of opinion.
    However, it sounds like the city planner
    in this case is not unvested.

    Most politicians, particularly in ignorant areas,
    are progrowth anti-environment, environmental
    lipservicers.

    Quoted message said:

    The answer is to
    redirect the funds into light rail.

    Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
    or even end growth.
    --Doug

    I like this remark by a local citizen: "I'm all for the environment,
    but the new highway would help people get to and from work."

    Kinda like saying "I'm all for the environment, as long as we don't let
    it interfere with the task of trashing the environment."

    -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
    --
    ======================================================================
    Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
    .. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
    .. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
    .. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
    .. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
    ======================================================================

  13. AustinMN said:
    Doug Bashford said:

    Soome well educated cities have chosen to redirect,
    or even end growth.

    It's called snob zoning. It's a well-deserved name.

    Anti-intellectualism rules: If you don't like it, call it by a
    demeaning name!

  14. AustinMN said:

    Garrison Hilliard wrote:

    <snip quoted article>

    Cross-posted to unrelated groups:

    rec.boats.paddle
    sci.environment
    rec.bicycles.misc

    Austin

    Lesse, an environmental issue impacting a paddling and bicycling
    venue... uh, you see no relationship there?

    You must be reading this in one of these groups. If you believe this
    is unrelated, then you are not reading that group as an interested
    participant, but as a provocateur. So, now I know how exactly much
    importance to attach to any opinion you might express.

    -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
    --
    ======================================================================
    Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
    .. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
    .. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
    .. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
    .. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
    ======================================================================

  15. On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Solvang Cyclist said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

    The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
    subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
    traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
    full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
    Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
    floor debate.

    Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

    There wasn't enough relevant content in the whole article to warrant
    posting any part of it to any r.b.* groups unless used as part of a
    relevant discussion or starter, IMO.

    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

  16. Werehatrack <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Solvang Cyclist said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    > Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

    The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
    subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
    traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
    full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
    Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
    floor debate.

    In the paddling group there have been quite a few discussions regarding
    motor boat traffic (and specifically how we can safely coexist). Similarly,
    I would have thought that motor vehicle traffic would a rather important
    issue for cyclist as well.

    Quoted message said:


    Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

    I know it would just ruin my day if someone from a newsgroup that I never
    read plonked me.

  17. Werehatrack said:

    On 12 Nov 2006 11:17:25 -0800, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    Solvang Cyclist said:

    Garrison Hilliard <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    > Showdown over a river

    Firstly, I don't see what this has to do with cycling.

    So you don't know about the Little Miami Bike Trail, eh?

    The article briefly and peripherally mentioned cycling, but the
    subject of the article and its primary focus is a motor vehicle
    traffic issue and project; posting this to a cycling newsgroup *in
    full* is about as relevant as posting the daily content of the
    Congressional Record for a date when a cycling issue was raised in
    floor debate.

    Focus on the topic, with a relevant excerpt, or expect to get plonked.

    There wasn't enough relevant content in the whole article to warrant
    posting any part of it to any r.b.* groups unless used as part of a
    relevant discussion or starter, IMO.

    Silly me. And this looked just sooooo much like a discussion "starter"
    to me.

    Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
    this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
    myopic?

    I used to ride, not too seriously, maybe 100 miles/week on roads and
    trails, before I took up whitewater paddling (which showed me how
    really borrrrrring road-biking is), and at the time I was a member of
    something called "The Rails-to-Trails Conservancy", and we were all
    about how traffic-planning issues affected bicyclists. This is no
    different. It is relevant to only a tiny number of SW Ohio
    trail-riders (and only a tiny number of SW Ohio boaters), but the rest
    of us can (what a concept) SKIP THE FLIPPIN' ARTICLE!

    Poor Garrison. He thought you morons in rec.bicycles.misc (and what,
    pray tell, do you imagine the "misc" indicates?) would still be
    interested in things like the way traffic decisions affect bike trails.
    He publishes bags of articles on rec.boats.paddle that won't interest
    *me* very much until the day comes that I float down the Ohio river on
    my way from Washington (DC) to Washington (state), but are valuable to
    anyone who boats in the Cincinnati area. Oddly, though, I don't jump
    all over him and whine about "staying on topic". I just scan his
    articles and go on. No harm, no foul. 'Course, even when I *was* a
    cyclist, I thought most cyclists were [censored]. You conform to my
    stereotype.

    -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
    --
    ======================================================================
    Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
    .. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
    .. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
    .. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
    .. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
    ======================================================================

  18. "Oci-One Kanubi" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
    this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
    myopic?

    I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
    civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
    ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
    adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
    no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
    relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
    would have been fine.

    Quoted message said:

    'Course, even when I *was* a
    cyclist, I thought most cyclists were [censored]. You conform to my
    stereotype.

    Reading through this thread for posters with a hostile tone, I find the
    quote above to be quite ironic.

    Cheers,
    David

  19. Solvang Cyclist <[email hidden]> wrote in rec.boats.paddle:

    Quoted message said:


    I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
    civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
    ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
    adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
    no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
    relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
    would have been fine.

    This is why Usenet was called "the largest collection of copyright violations
    in the world" until BitTorrent came along.

    On the plus side for we remaining few on Usenet, it's much easier to read
    reposted newspaper articles here, where there are neither pop-up ads nor
    bogus Javascript doo-dads, just the text ma'am.

    Also, newspapers are infamous for taking down articles just a few days
    after they appear. Imagine that!

  20. Solvang Cyclist said:

    "Oci-One Kanubi" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    Have you considered that, if Solvang Cyclist (and you) "don't see what
    this has to do with cycling", you and he (she?) might be just a bit
    myopic?

    I normality don't reply to such posts since they almost never return to a
    civil conversation, but I will try. Note that my main point has been
    ignored here. That is, to copy a newspaper article verbatim without
    adding ANY original content is a clear violation of copyright and is in
    no way protected by fair use. Had the original poster simply quoted the
    relevant parts of the article to use as a basis for original thought, it
    would have been fine.

    Affirmative on the copyright issue, but I thought you might have said,
    as one well-intentioned outdoor recreationist to another: "thanks for
    the tip; this issue might impact some cyclists and boaters. But,
    really, you should be careful about copyright infringement when you
    post the full text of an article this way." And gone on in more detail
    if you wished, in a collegial, comradely kind of way.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    'Course, even when I *was* a
    cyclist, I thought most cyclists were [censored]. You conform to my
    stereotype.

    Reading through this thread for posters with a hostile tone, I find the
    quote above to be quite ironic.

    Well, of course you have extracted this quotation from context. The
    context was this: someone posted, in good faith (but poor judgement WRT
    copyright infringement) an article calling attention to an
    urban-planning issue that might be of interest to environmentalists,
    cyclists, and boaters. But rather than glancing briefly to determine
    that the content was of no use to yourselves, the two of you evidently
    read it all, then complained because he posted it, though this
    well-intentioned message might actually be of interest to other readers
    of your newsgroup.

    You try to imply that, because you used no specifically provocative
    words or terms, your post and Werehatrack's post were not hostile.
    This is wrong. I fell into rec.bicycles.* by the OP's crosspost, yet
    the Usenet-wide ettiquette for newsgroup posting has been the same for
    decades, regardless of different group subcultures: in unmoderated
    newsgroups anyone who is interested in the topic may post to the group,
    and anyone who is not interested in what that poster has to say...
    ignores the message.

    So... yeh, I think anyone who jumps up and starts railing against a
    well-intentioned act that he can easily ignore is -- let me soften it a
    bit -- *acting* like an [censored]. And I'm sure I don't need to point
    out that no-one from the boating newsgroup or the environmental
    newsgroup was doing this kind of railing. So I jumped to a conclusion,
    which you resent.

    -Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
    --
    ======================================================================
    Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
    .. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
    .. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
    .. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
    .. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
    ======================================================================

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.