Now, Jon, don't you think you are going even more overboard here, changing not only what the research says but also changing what I said? You continue to lie about what I actually said and completely fail to understand what it means for a virus to be infective but dormant vs living and reproducing.

There is nothing earth shatteringly new with this virus over others, only the understanding of how it spreads which changed as the research progressed. It surprised us all, even surprising Dr. Lockhart.

I suggest at this point that you just stay out of any more HVX discussions. You don't really know what it looks like (on one thread you suggested the person had a fungus and provided links to support your belief, when it was clear HVX symptoms), you don't understand what the research report says (you think the assumptions were the results), and you have never actually encountered an HVX infected plant or did any research of your own on it.

Why do you believe, out of all the people here and elsewhere talking about HVX, that somehow I am not qualified to discuss it yet you know more than every other person here? I might mistype something from time to time, or in the past have hypothesized about things that didn't turn out to be right, but I learned as much as I could and continue to learn. In the 13 years that I've been researching HVX and teaching people about it I've never met anyone as stubborn as you, but it has given us some good laughs. Now whenever I mix up my words, forget something or make a mistake everyone here jumps all over me saying "You're wrong, just admit it!", so I really have to make sure I don't slip up these days LOL

Kathy, "The illustration at left depicts a virion – the infectious particle that is designed for transmission of the nucleic acid genome among hosts or host cells. A virion is not the same as a virus." Link

I knew that........... But of course! ;-)

-Babka

Babka, please provide a link or any verifiable information you have on any quote; any quote by Dr. Lockhart or any university, research group, Hosta Society or other established reliable source that disagrees with the only published statement "HVX is not known to be spread in soil."

Link

That is the key to the dispute.

Rather than simply trolling my posts and trying to lure me into an email group where you would feel free of forum rules to personally attack me why don't you produce the one piece of information that would disprove what I am saying. If you cannot then please stop being a troll.

Thank you,

Jon

We all have access to the info, Jon, at the American Hosta Society. The research has been linked here adnauseum.

Huh? How have I tried to "lure" you into any email group?

So now you are calling me a troll. Cute. I've been on this forum since the late 90's. In those early days, Spike would've sent to Disneyland by now. (Old timers here will know what I mean)

"Trollin' trollin' trollin' down the river".

-Babka

Hosta Virus X- The Latest AHS Research,,,and once again I ask "where is this link" I know that it has been mentioned many times, but never has there been a link. You can dance around it as much as you want, but the link you and one other person claim doesn't exist.

It is so easy, Someone produce the link to a recognized university, the Hosta Society or research group that backs up what has been claimed over and over. The quote and links to the Hosta Society that you have seen are my links and direct quotes.

The only mention of these facts changing is a statement that this information was preliminary and has changed. It has not been changed and you are proving it doesn't. Childish ditties and making statements you cannot document do not change the facts.

Produce the link or admit the claimed revision of the 'Latest Research' published by the Hosta Society is the latest research and neither you nor anyone else can produce the claimed change that HVX infects plain soil and remains infective for over 2 years.

I am very tired of the diversions from the basic facts.

Where's the beef? You won't produce it because you can't.

It is just that simple. Prove what you say and you completely destroy my test. Keep avoiding the point and it is clear you cannot.

Jon

Link...see how easy it is.

FurtherResearchon HostaVirus X:AnsweringSomeNewQuestions BenhamE.Lockhart,Professor,PlantPathology
I. ObjectivesofProposedResearch
TheAHS-fundedHVXresearchprojectcarriedoutduring2007-2009wasdesignedtoanswera numberofquestionsthatareoffrequentconcerntohostagrowers;inparticularthemeansby whichtheviruscanbespreadtoandinfecthealthyhostas.Amongtheresultsthatwere obtained,twowereofparticular interestandjudgedtowarrantfurtherinvestigation.Thesewere thefollowing:
1) HVXcanbetransmittedfrominfectedtohealthyhostasoncuttingtools.

2) HVXcanbetransmittedtohealthyhostasfrominfectedresidualroottissuepresentin thesoil.
Basedontheseresults,anadditionalresearchprojectisproposedtoaddressthefollowing issues:
1) Whatarethemosteffective andpracticalmeansofdecontaminatingcuttingtools in ordertoavoidspreadofHVX? 2) ForhowlongdoesHVX-infectedresidualroottissueremain infectioustorootsof healthyreplacementhosta?

3) Howmuchvirus-infectedresidualroottissueisneededtocauserootinfection? 4) AreanyperennialsplantedtoreplaceHVX-infectedhostassusceptibletorootinfection byresidualhostarootspresentinsoil?

5) Canroot-to-rootspreadofHVXoccurduringpost-harvestwashingofrootsforremoval ofsoil?

Link Proposed HVX Phase 2

There is no mention of any reference to HVX infection from soil only infected material. This was not even a proposal for Phase 2 which I don't know was ever funded. This is very basic and very obvious. The statement that there was research that others claim changed the facts from the Phase 1 research doesn't exist. It wasn't even proposed. I apologize for allowing myself to be diverted from this and I hope this settles the question.

Of course, if someone disagrees with this, I will not accept anything without proof.

Jon

When I cut and pasted the document the words ran together. There seems to be no way to edit it and add the appropriate spaces. I do expect some apologies for the way my character has been attacked, although I doubt that those involved will.

By the way Babka, how is your little 'Hate Jon' email group going.

Your character is abrasive Jon... I'm not apologizing for that. That's on you...

smorz, I get that way when I go over and over the same points and people keep telling me something that I know is wrong and I don't know what I am talking about as I have had happen, even calling me a liar. A simple 'I realize now that you were right all along" would be civil and the right thing to do. But, that's OK, you are not one of the people that really owe me an apology.

I expect 'they' will disappear and maybe come back on another thread repeating the same thing they know isn't true. But thank you for your opinion......everyone has one.

I'm afraid this might be the end of Babka's "hate Jon' email club though, but maybe not. Hate dies hard.

Jon

Emotions do not belong in debates. Nothing here should be taken personally... and nothing I have witnessed is hate worthy. Babka has a valid point... one I agree with. It has obviously become personal and it is unfair to everyone. Taking it elsewhere is a good suggestion, hardly suggesting hate.

Jon- I never said I hate you. Dislike would be my term. And what in the world is an e-mail club? You are making that all up. I wish you would allow me to send you a private e-mail so we can take this he-said-she-said nonsense "outside".

-Babka

Please go through the index and you will see where Babka has an announcement that you can discuss things privately on email. She suggested to me that I should take my discussion off forum and keep the discussion private in email.

I have no problem keeping everything I say public. Since this email devicewas started just for me, I had no intention of allowing people to use this to attack what I was saying. I was getting attacked enough in public without affording people to attack what I was saying in private emails..

Since it was set up specifically to discuss this topic and specifically by Babka who has shown herself to be antagonistic to me on this thread I would say that "The hate Jon Club" would be an appropriate name for this.

Babka, you invited everyone to 'take it outside' and are you denying that what I was saying is the only reason you wanted to start this little clique. I invite anyone to go to your thread and read exactly what the purpose of this 'club' was.

Take a look at it smorz, it is not hard to find.

Babka, when can I expect that link. Surely if you cannot find it you owe me an apology. Please don't tell me it has been posted ad nauseum or any other excuse. Post it or apologize as anyone would under the circumstances when they make such an obvious mistake. When I make a mistake that is what I do.

Jon

PS- I do want to say I 'dislike' you too.

"nothing I have witnessed is hate worthy."

Well maybe you missed the post in this thread that called me a liar, or the several that said I had a problem comprehending things. You must be a better man than me smorz, because I call people doing that when the only possible reason for continuously repeating things they must know are untrue is to purposely deceive. To me this is 'hate worthy' and you might have a different opinion if you were the target of all this.

Please read the recruitment thread for this 'club' and I am sure that you will see that the purpose was to allow people to 'pile on' me. The suggestion there was any other purpose is disingenuous. Why would anyone in their right mind join anything like this, which had the sole purpose of spitting on me.

Jon

I emailed Rob Mortko, by the way. Results are posted.

Thank you MBT. I have commented...as you might imagine.

Jon

Oh my, my brain hurts! I respect everyone of you and will be forever greatful for everything I have learned here and all of the lovely photos, and good hearted jokes, etc. This is like discussing politics and religion, nothing is ever settled. I am so sad to read a discussion like this and am hoping this will come to an end soon, let bygones be bygones. Please, no more angry words.

Sherry

Sherry, I contacted the VP of the AHS and posted my questions with his remarks verbatim. I had hoped it would end the discussion too.

Unless someone can provide a link that contradicts both the phase one research conclusions of Dr. Lockhart and Dr. Lockhart's proposal for a phase 2 research study there is nothing to discuss any further, HVX in infected hosta tissue is how HVX survives for over 2 years. If anyone finds anything to contradict Dr. Lockhart and provides a link to the proof, I will admit I was wrong.

The odds of this happening are astronomical and would contradict everything known about HVX and any other plant virus.

Jon

If someone wants to again suggest that Dr. Lockhart found something different out in a phase two research project (which there seems to be no record of occurring) I simply ask for a link to it. Simply saying there is something other than what is in black and white without proof is not proof of anything.

I challenge anyone to find out anything different. Phase 2 seems to be as hard to find as Jimmy Hoffa's body.

The discussion is ended as far as I am concerned. There is nothing but Phase one and a proposal for phase 2 by the unquestioned world's leading expert on HVX who says infection after digging up a hosta is from "infected residual tissue". Period. That is good enough for me.

Show me the link. I am not interested in any more deflections. Its put up or shut up time. If you want to play around and find an HVX infected hosta and experiment on your own to appease a notion that Glyphosate kills only the hosta and HVX miraculously survives against all known science, then go ahead, be my guest. When a hosta is dead the virus is dead. Don't expect me to get involved in it just to appease you.

HVX doesn't live in soil, dead leaves, dead crowns, dead roots or anything but live hosta tissue and sap. If you think differently provide a link from a reputable institute that agrees with you, I don't and neither does any expert up to and including Dr. Lockhart.

If you don't think so, prove it.

Jon

Jon, According to your link the infectious particle is the virion. A root of an infected hosta will have viruses controlling cells making virions which will infect other cells, etc. Kill the root and you kill the viruses, but the virions that have been produced but have not yet infected another cell will still be present as infectious particles. Without a living cell to infect they will begin to degrade. At some point they will no longer be infectious. Dr. Lockhart's research showed hostas could get infected up to two years (the duration of his research grant) after being planted in soil where a diseased hosta had been. Since it is an observed phenomena there is some mechanism that allows it. Maybe they are hyper stable and degrade slowly.

Please keep trying to kill that hosta. It is the first step in the line of research that you have started. I think the easiest way to test your success is to mark its location well and wait until spring. In a few years you should know how to kill a hosta with roundup. Then your next tests might be along the lines of how long will soil remain infectious when the diseased hosta was killed by roundup before its removal.

A plant toxicologist I know said not to waste my Roundup on poison ivy in the middle of the summer. She said spring or fall is when it will be killed. FWIW

No I wouldn't have a different opinion if I were the target Jon... because I am indifferent to what people I do not know well, might think of me. I know what I think of me... I know what personal friends think of me. After that it's hit or miss. I'm ok with that, and incidentally that leaves anyone else no choice but to be ok with it. But please note... you accused me of attacking you by disagreeing with you and your methods. And you have put out equally cross words towards ppl here. And you continue to taunt babka and chris. So ... yanno... you are hardly a victim or merely acting out on the defense. And I expect you to continue this convo and your jabs every chance you get, true to form.

Kathy, I am not interested in anything other than the fact that HVX doesn't live in anything other than live hosta tissue and sap. PS, sap is very much like the 'blood' of a plant and is given as the main transmitter of HVX. If you challenge this please refer to the links I have given many times or do your own research.

After so many distractions and swerves away from this basic fact I refuse to get involved in anything else. There is no point to it. No one in the scientific community accepts HVX can live outside live hosta tissue. Unless someone can come up with some verified facts on the 'Second Phase' of Dr. Lockhart's work which has no proof of it ever being anything but proposed, the discussion on this point is done.

So far there has been only someone's word and many statements that this is a fact and a continual refusal to provide any proof; while saying that the proof has already been given. Those that want to accept this without proof have taken a position of trust and faith rather than any science. There is no way I can expect to convince them to change their religion.

It is very simple, from now on I will only stick to the question at hand. If you or anyone else can provide a link from any respected institution that says anything other than HVX only lives in live hosta tissue then that discussion is over. No more diversions please !

Jon

smorz, if you called me a liar or set up an email clique specifically to attack me then you would surely be exposed to my jabs. I have stated that all I want to see is proof of the illusive (probably non-existent) Phase 2 research that is the basis and only basis for the continually repeated (but never linked quoted, or proved) suggestion that HVX can be transmitted from soil without infected live tissue which is exactly wrong according to the links and every evidence I have found.

Your post, continuing to discuss me is an example of continuing the conversation on a personal level which you are telling me is a personality flaw of mine which you don't like. What makes you think I find it appealing in you?

I am perfectly content to simply give my opinion which is based on facts and I would like it if people wouldn't interject personality or personal attacks as you just have.

When you continually do, expect jabs.

Jon

I emailed the AHS VP and here is what he had to say:

"Hello, Mr. Mortko,

My name is mybrownthumb6. I have some questions regarding HVX's ability to remain infective in soil for 2+ years. Does the virus have to have living plant material to remain infectious or is it residing and remaining infectious in dead plant debris? There seems to be a lot of confusion surrouding this issue."

Response:

"Hi mybrownthumb6b,

We do not know the mechanism that allows the virus to persist in the soil after an infected plant has been removed. Any speculation on the mechanism is just that – pure speculation. It was totally by accident that Dr. Lockhart discovered this during the AHS Research Project performed at the University of Minnesota. Two years also just happened to be the time duration of the research project.

Hosta'ly,

Rob Mortko

Made in the Shade Gardens

16370 W. 138th Terr

Olathe, KS 66062

913-206-6939"

Rob Mortko is not only the Executive Vice President of the American Hosta Association, but he runs his own nursery as well.

I wasn't trying to be appealing, I was returning the abrasiveness... I figured it would be obvious exactly what I was doing. I hold no grudge... so we can be done, with due respect to the rest of the forum.

Well, the next time you disagree with someone when they enter into a discussion on something and declare they are doing so because they are tired of hearing about this glyphosate method on his forum by people who are reading about it on this forum and they then threaten to bring a libel lawsuit several times because you disagree with them and call them out for their continually refusing to produce any evidence of what they say.

When I continually pressed for proof I got several responses that I have trouble comprehending the facts, Not once did he provide any link to the claims he was making. He then called me a liar in his last post.

All this after I started out by saying what a good company he works for and how people rightfully look to him for information.

You will have to excuse my being abrasive, being nice didn't work.

Seriously??? Being nice?

Seriously, when the discussion first started I started out by saying what a good company he works for and how people rightfully look to him for information. I was threatened several times with a libel suit for daring to question him, told I lacked the ability to comprehend several times and was called a liar.

Seriously Jamie; would you pussy foot around if someone did that to you??? Look I know many people look to him for information and he graciously gives it as it is good business as well. This doesn't give him license to attack me. This doesn't give him the right to be wrong and threaten me with lawsuits and call me a liar when I correct him.

So YES, seriously.

Great discussion. I love a good debate. I'm with you Jon. Thanks for putting the information out here. I'll do with it what I'll will; use it, ignore it, whatever I feels. That some don't like the info, or the delivery, or whatever, is 100% their problem. That they can't/don't refute the information and attack the deliverer instead; well, that is who and what they are! For the rest of us, keep up the good work, Jon.

Thanks GC.

Jon

I have not read all the posts in this thread. Please forgive me if I am repeating something that someone else has posted. Here's a quote from the AHS talking about the results of Dr. Lockhart's research regarding soil contamination:

"The second major surprise of the research project occurred when it was observed that virus-free hostas became infected with HVX when planted in the same location where an HVX-infected plant had previously been growing. Soil with HVX plant debris and root material was found to remain infective for at least two years. (Note that two years was simply the duration of this research project. The actual time of remaining infectivity could be longer.) Subsequent testing showed that 2 out of 20 hostas planted in soil from which HVX-infected plants had been removed became infected with the virus. This method of virus spread had not been previously reported for Potexviruses and was totally unexpected."

A second phase of research was in the making when this was put on the AHS website. I can't find any evidence that the research was ever funded or conducted.

Two questions that it was intended to answer were:

"For how long does HVX-infected residual root tissue remain infectious to roots of healthy replacement hosta?

How much virus-infected residual root tissue is needed to cause root infection?"

These quotes were taken from: http://www.americanhostasociety.org/Publications/41/HVXarticle.htm

Soil with HVX plant debris and root material was found to remain infective for at least two years. (Note that two years was simply the duration of this research project. The actual time of remaining infectivity could be longer.)

is the key.

The disagreement was when someone insisted that there was further work that showed infection could occur without HVX- infected debris or root material.

I insisted this wasn't possible and it is not. Please read my previous post which goes on to show that Dr. Lockhart's proposal for a phase 2 research project shows it was never his intention to try and prove soil without infected material could spread HVX as was contended by others and I am sure Dr. Lockhart realizes this as he has stated. In fact there is no evidence I can find that the Phase 2 research was ever done. I don't believe it was.

Jon

I'm sorry Jon, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that a hosta could be infected from soil that had never been contaminated with HVX containing plant material.

It seems to me that your argument is that LIVE plant material needs to be present for the HVX virus to continue to be infectious. Thus your recommendation to kill the hosta "to the root" with roundup.

I still think you might be right and applaud your research into glyphosate induced hosta demise.

Hasn't anyone asked the AHS about phase 2?

HVX cannot survive in dead leaves / roots or any dead material. it also cannot migrate out of live tissue other than by sap or abrasion or cutting. If you look back at the discussion (Arrrrrgh) I think you will find that HVX surviving in only living tissue / sap was said to be the preliminary finding only and that there was further research (by Dr. Lockhart) that said otherwise.

My insistence on providing proof was met with insistences that this was proven and the information was provided ad nauseum and repetition of resumes and 'We all know this" responses.

I understand that I am looked at as the bad guy due to the long standing relationships where very good advice has been given for many years. I respect this loyalty, however from my viewpoint when someone enters a thread with the expressed goal of disproving what I have said because it disagrees with his advice, refuses to provide any proof of his statements, threatens me with libel lawsuits for disagreeing with him and tops it off by calling me a liar is beyond the pale.

I do feel sorry for him. He should have never entered into a discussion which, up to this point was a friendly discussion and back and forth, without carefully checking his facts and allowing himself to conduct (what I consider) a personal attack based on animus and pride rather than facts.

I do hope he comes back and continues to post, as his advice is valuable. If this is conditional on me apologizing or retracting anything I said which I firmly believe is true, that will not happen.

I have sent a message to the Hosta Society and will share any information they might forward to me on any studies subsequent to Phase 1.

Jon

Jon, your part of the discussion was never friendly towards me. You suggested that people should not pay for me to give a lecture. You also called me a pompous ass, publicly, here on this forum. I was civil and you attacked and attacked. I have a copy of what you said and felt it was libelous. You also continue to distort almost everything that I said, and people entering into the discussion without seeing the nasty things you said in the past might even believe you.

I never stated that HVX will be in plain soil. I never said it "lives" in dead tissue. Why do you keep saying something I never said?

The research supports what I have been saying all along, that soil where an infected hosta had been growing can remain infectious. That's what you wrote above but at the beginning of the discussion, long ago, you even stated this was impossible.

After the first phase was completed it was simply noted that hostas in that location continued to catch HVX even longer, beyond the two years. That means that HVX remained infectious in that location for far longer than anyone ever expected, and this was NOT expected at all at the start of the research. Nobody expected HVX to be able to survive in the garden after digging up the infected plant, but that's what the research showed.

As far as I know the only entirely new work in the second part of the research was to look at power washing as a means of transmission, as is done to prepare plants for import into the United States, and it was shown to be highly effective. I don't think the AHS had any more funding to really keep going. The AHS really never had much interest in studying HVX in the first place, but with some pressure they did, and I'm glad that people have had the chance to discuss the research so much.

'You suggested that people should not pay for me to give a lecture.' I did say I hope they weren't paying much. This was well into our 'discussions' after your threats of a lawsuit and many erroneous statements on your part and frankly a lot of personal attacks by you. .

'You also called me a pompous ass, publicly, here on this forum.' Yes I did.

'I was civil and you attacked and attacked. I have a copy of what you said and felt it was libelous. ' You have a strange idea of civil and once again the first thing anyone has to prove in a libel suit is there was a lie. Also, please be aware that there are legal remedies for frivolous lawsuits.

'I never stated that HVX will be in plain soil. I never said it "lives" in dead tissue. Why do you keep saying something I never said?' Since you now agree, what exactly was your argument with what I said and my simple idea of killing an HVX infected hosta with Glyphosate?

"'The research supports what I have been saying all along, that soil where an infected hosta had been growing can remain infectious.' ...and you continue to disingenuously leave out "with infectious live tissue"

'After the first phase was completed it was simply noted that hostas in that location continued to catch HVX even longer, beyond the two years. ' This was stated in Phase 1 and, of course only from infected bits of root or other live tissue."

Basedontheseresults,anadditionalresearchprojectisproposedtoaddressthefollowing issues:
1) Whatarethemosteffective andpracticalmeansofdecontaminatingcuttingtools in ordertoavoidspreadofHVX? 2) ForhowlongdoesHVX-infectedresidualroottissueremain infectioustorootsof healthyreplacementhosta? 3) Howmuchvirus-infectedresidualroottissueisneededtocauserootinfection? 4) AreanyperennialsplantedtoreplaceHVX-infectedhostassusceptibletorootinfection byresidualhostarootspresentinsoil? 5) Canroot-to-rootspreadofHVXoccurduringpost-harvestwashingofrootsforremoval ofsoil?

Link to Phase 2 proposal

I'm glad you finally agree that HVX can only be transmitted in live infectious tissue and in commercial power washing which could be from wounding and sap transmission in this process.

Since now you agree with me on this basic fact, what prompted you to spend so much time and energy opposing my idea that killing an HVX infected hosta 'to the root' was a bad idea to explore? ...and why do you insist that digging out an infected hosta and all adjacent hostas in the area, with the inherent danger of leaving infected bits of live tissue behind to infect any hosta planted in the same spot would be a superior method than killing the infected hosta?

Of course it would take an scanning electron microscope to actually prove completely dead tissue, however any reasonable person would have to agree that the risk of infection from live tissue left behind from digging, which is now only 4%, could be reduced to zero, or very close to zero by killing all the live infectious hosta tissue or practically all of the infectious hosta tissue?

Since glyphosate works by disrupting enzymes in every portion of a hosta, every part of the hosta would be affected in the same manner as the leaves are. This is information that agrees with every scientific source that I have read. Since glyphosate has been around for 50 years, I cannot imagine there is any information (or anyone) that disputes this.

Jon

The source of ct's confusion: "Can a virus live in dead plant material, meaning reproduce and replicate itself? No". ct has his own definition of "live". 99.9% would say if it something is not alive it is dead. ct is clearly implying that not "live" can still remain infectious.

The wheels on the bus go round and round...thought I'd inject some levity for what its worth. Lots of info to read and ponder.

*eyes rolling*

-Babka

Maybe you should roll on over to your email clique.

I guess you just can't be nice to some people.

*kills self*

gag, I think you are looking for Babka's email clique. You will find some like minded people there I'm sure.

Dear Jon- Oh how I hate to write....

I am so sorry I reported your behavior to the folks at Houzz. They removed the worst, most degrading rants and comments you made in your posts on several different threads, so that now, people can't see them and decide for themselves just now wonderfully "nice" you are. (I doubt they care).

So Jon, your wish is granted. I am giving up arguing with you as you misconstrue what I say and are not willing to just agree to disagree.

-Babka

I noticed a while ago many comments were deleted, not just mine. I'm glad. I feel that someone obviously felt his ideas were under attack and made a big mistake by digging in his heels instead of making sure of his facts....and after all it was not me that barged onto someone else's thread and started an argument with no proof.

I never went after anyone and I think any honest person would admit that the facts are exactly what I said they were.

Your comments throughout however have been personal and I certainly haven't misconstrued that, but thank you for giving up on interjecting rude comments and expressing your 'dislike' of me and especially for the blatant call for me to join the email clique you founded to 'take it outside' which any reasonable person could see had no other reason for existence other than to spit on me.

I notice that post has been deleted as well.

Entire post: >>Babka NorCal 9b

*eyes rolling*

-Babka<<

Sage advise for the village nazi: if you have nothing to say. say nothing! That you don't/won't/can't present a cogent argument refuting a single thing jon says and have been reduced to spewing 2-word derogatory posts because you don't like the person posting, and then incredibly you follow that with an attempt to exterminate the person and his posts! Wow!

gardencool, be careful, If Babka invites you to join a personal email group.....don't.

I'm not actually dead....in case anybody was worried....