future footbag hall of fame

[shreddaily]

The era of widely spread footbag shred videos is almost a decade old. With the "footbag hall of fame nomination" email going out a bit ago it got me thinking.
A) What are the first tournament dates of the big name shredder of the first wave of shred videos?
B) What should be the criteria for nominating people over the next decade.

It takes 18 years before someone can be nominated and I realize some people are already in, Irish, Schultz, ect... but I know there are some other still active players that have to be getting close to the 18 year mark before to long.

[C-Fan]

I'm not sure I understand your first numbered question. Could you rephrase it perhaps?

Does anybody have a list of the current requirements to make the footbag HOF? If one of the requirements is having "played footbag for 18 years," I wonder how they measure that. Like, if you played hack for 10 years before discovering footbag, do those 10 years count towards your total?

The other thing I am curious about is how people get inducted. If its a case of only the current members being able to vote, then I don't really like many people's chances of getting in. People like Ted Huff and Stallburger are really cool guys and I respect them, but they haven't exactly been following the nitty gritty of the freestyle scene for the last 15+ years.

What are people's thoughts about what should be counted as HOF criteria? Individual ability? Tournament results? Influence in the progression of the sport? Promotion of the sport? Some mix of all the above? I'm curious to know what people think should count.

Some random thoughts to consider:

1. Vasek, Ryan Mulroney, Ahren Gehrman, and Jorden Moir have never hosted an event or a tournament. Should that matter when considering their chances?

2. Eli, Jere V, and the Unanime guys all played footbag, and were also amazing filmmakers whose videos helped promote the sport. I think Eli was a better player than Jere Vainikka and the Unanime guys, but I think those guys were better filmmakers. Does everybody get in? Or do we take the overall evaluation of their game/film ouevre?

3. I think Jan Zimmerman gets in based on his history of throwing tournies, as well as creating planetfootbag and all the promotion from that. Jan also is a good player, and could even have made BAP in 03. Imagine for a second though that Jan did not play footbag well (like, barely tiltless), or did not play at all. Does he still get in? I'd argue yes.

4. Chad D and Ahren were arguably the 2 best players in the world around the year 2000. They only competed a handful of times in their life, and never did that well at Worlds (I think Ahren made finals in routines one year). Do they make the cut?

Lots of stuff to consider and argue about. Interesting stuff, but its all hypothetical, since I don't think it will affect who gets in or how the process works.

[Outsider]

I'm not sure I understand your first numbered question. Could you rephrase it perhaps?

A) What are the first tournament dates of the big name shredder of the first wave of shred videos?

Ken, I might be mis-interpretting Nasty, but I think he's saying that the people who were featured in the first wave of widely distributed shred videos are historically significant to footbag and thus Hall of Fame candidates, so, how long have those shredders been officially involved with the game?...

Does anybody have a list of the current requirements to make the footbag HOF? If one of the requirements is having "played footbag for 18 years," I wonder how they measure that. Like, if you played hack for 10 years before discovering footbag, do those 10 years count towards your total?

Hall of Fame eligibility criteria
http://www.footbag.org/reference/-/Hall ... n_Criteria

Ken, it was only just this year that I saw an e-mail from Peter Irish saying that they've change the criteria, reducing the years of involvement down to 15 Years. I didn't see the "Year of first involvement" criteria explained in great detail on the above web-site, but I'm pretty sure that things like "having kicked a hack around at concerts for ten years" doesn't count. I'd spoken to somebody about this a while ago, can't even remember who, and I believe its supposed to be some kind of verifiable involvement with the organized side of the sport. That is to say, something like "you're eligible for HoF 15 years from the first tournament that you actually registered in." Currently that means you must have been actively and verifiably involved in the organized part of the sport no later than 1993.

The other thing I am curious about is how people get inducted. If its a case of only the current members being able to vote, then I don't really like many people's chances of getting in. People like Ted Huff and Stallburger are really cool guys and I respect them, but they haven't exactly been following the nitty gritty of the freestyle scene for the last 15+ years

Footbag Dot Org says "Anyone may nominate anyone to the nominations committee. The nomination committee will review all open nominations/testimonials, and announce the final ballot via announce at footbag dot org."

As for who gets to vote, I'm not certain, but, yeah, I think that voting is pretty much exclusive to people actually in the HoF. I don't find this discouraging, though, considering that guys like Peter Irish and Tuan Vu are in the HoF, and still very active in the sport (even if the Disco Ninja has turned to the dark side... ). Further, while voting may be limited to those already in the HoF, they consider any testimonials submitted in support of the current nominees from ANYBODY.

What are people's thoughts about what should be counted as HOF criteria? Individual ability? Tournament results? Influence in the progression of the sport? Promotion of the sport? Some mix of all the above? I'm curious to know what people think should count.

Dot Org's HoF page says "Nominations should be based on leadership as displayed by an individual, based on their innovation, inspiration, promotion, sponsorship, teaching, club development, tournament organization, international sport development, and demonstration that has significantly advanced the sport worldwide, past to present." (bold text as it appears on Dot Org)

Personally, I think that it is not necessarily enough simply to be a great player, though maybe in some cases it is. Furthermore, being a great player should not necessarily be a requirement. I can think of a couple of, shall we say, "less-that-excellent" footbag players who I beleive should be in the HoF someday soon.

I'm not going to comment on any of the "candidates" that you mentioned here, Ken. I could, but I just don't feel like it now. I'd gladly discuss them with you over a beer, but not over an internet. On the other hand, I will gladly proclaim that I submitted nominations/testimonials this year for Daryl Genz and Richard Abshire, a couple of people that I think have been of significant importance to this game (in a number of ways, including their playing and their generous support of other players and events through donation of the footbags they produce) for a long time now. I'm not even certain of how long Richie has been "officially" involved in the game. I just figured that it was a safe bet that he's been around for more than 15 years (if I'm wrong now, I'll just nominate him again later). Daryl, on the other hand, I'm pretty certain that he was going to Worlds back when it was held in Golden, Colorado every year. 1993 was the last year that Worlds was in Golden, so, again, it seemed fairly certain that his "official" first year of involvement had to have been at least as long ago as 1993.

[shreddaily]

What I meant was that every year when the email goes out it seems that only the people who have been in the sport long enough to be in the hall of fame have any connection to who is being admitted. Where as in the next decade anyone who has access to a vhs player or internet can have an opinion on the entries to the HoF.
15 years from first official tournament entry. Thats what the Executioner told me, though it was 18 when we had our meeting-of-the-minds.
As for what criteria should be my OPINION is:
1 someone who was near the top of freestyle or net perfromance.
2 someone with lots of tournament, video or internet hosting/making.


3 Someone who is in the game after 15 years! I think that this alone limits the field to a very few, and over time this won't be the case and the top two options will become more strict as to who fits those criteria.

sooooo...
big add chad's first tourney entrance?
genzu?
the above 2 posters?

[Muffinman]

2 someone with lots of tournament, video or internet hosting/making.

I'll qualify in like 4-5 years based on this

[Rieferman]

Maybe I'm wrong on this... In most other sports, aren't the vast majority of hall of fame members players? Very selectively some coaches and others, but mostly players.

Something just seems odd to have promotion and tournies as such a big part of hall of fame consideration. There are instances where people should get in for things other than their play (such as Steve Goldberg who has done SOOOOO much that it's ridiculous not to include him) but I think those should be much more rare. Say, a 90% player 10% other mix.

Also, I don't care if someone ever participated in tournaments. Like someone mentioned Ahren. He was so sick for so long, who cares about tournies? He pushed the game far.

[C-Fan]

What I meant was that every year when the email goes out it seems that only the people who have been in the sport long enough to be in the hall of fame have any connection to who is being admitted. Where as in the next decade anyone who has access to a vhs player or internet can have an opinion on the entries to the HoF.

Thanks for the clarification. I think you make a very interesting point, which hadn't crossed my mind before. I looked at the official list of HOF members which I found interesting for several reasons.

1. Similar to what Nasty Nate pointed out, I don't know many of the people on the list. Having video of people in their prime will make future inductions more interesting, both for casual observers like us, as well as for the audience at the HOF induction at worlds.

2. There are 50 HOFers, of which 9 are women. Compared to the actual gender breakdowns of modern footbag, this is surprising. Were there a lot more women in the sport relative to men back in the day? Or did some of these women get in the Hall partially as result of being pioneers in the sport as minorities?

3. This is based mostly on the names in the list, but it appears that only 3 people in the Hall are not white. This is assuming that Ian Kobayashi is asian, and that David Robinson is David Robinson. I kind of doubt this though, so it may be only 2/50 in the Hall who are not white. Again, it is interesting to compare this with the current demographics of footbag.

4. Mulroney's first worlds was 1995, so he'll be eligible in 2 years.

5. Bob: I don't follow other sports HOFs much, but I know that in basketball all sorts of people get into the HOF. I'd say it's about 2/3 players, and the rest tend to be coaches. I know sometimes announcers get in, like the Lakers' Chick Hearn. I also know that when somebody gets inducted in the basketball HOF, they make a distinction between whether or not they got inducted as a player or a coach. Like, Phil Jackson I think is in as a coach, but not as a player, even though he did win a ring as a player on the Knicks. I think John Wooden and Lenny Wilkens are the only 2 people to be in the basketball HOF as both players and coaches. I don't recognize enough names on the footbag HOF list to say if most people got in solely based on their playing achievements or not.

6. Only one person in the footbag HOF is from outside North America.

[Jeremy]

I don't really have much to say in response to other people in this topic, they clearly know a lot more about the specifics of the HOF and the history of footbag than I do, however I've always thought that having a hall of fame for footbag is far too premature compared with other sports.

For example Australian Rules Football - which is the biggest sport in Australia - a very sporty country - started in 1856 (I think) and the current competition - the Australian Football League started in 1897 (although it was called the Victorian Football League until 1990). Despite being the biggest sport in Australia with the most money etc. the sport only created a hall of fame in 1996 (the 100th year of the competition). This kind of thing is typical of most sports and other organisations. A while ago I attended a meeting of Regional Arts Tasmania which is starting to talk about having a hall of fame after existing for around 100 years as well. By having such a short period of time between the inception of the sport and a hall of fame, as well as by having so many members etc. it seems to lower the credibility of being recognised into the hall of fame.

I guess things are in a tough position now though. It doesn't seem like a good move for the IFPA to get rid of the current hall of fame and wait 50 years before creating a new one. I'm not sure what the solution is, if there is one, it's just seems like a poor decision. Also I apologise for posting criticism of something that I'm not making any effort to fix; something which I really hate seeing on modified. The reality is that I don't think this is an important issue, otherwise hopefully I would try and be more involved (or it seems from the process that really current HOF members are the appropriate people to deal with the issue).

[Outsider]

So many questions...

I want to try to look at this in the simplest way possible.

From what I can recall of the first few footbag HoF ceremonies I've seen (and I suppose that would probably be some of the earliest HoF ceremonies, period), the idea behind the HoF, presently, is to keep an account of the history of footbag. Somebody had the idea that the history of our game is an important thing to know about -- answers to questions like "how did this all start?", "why do we play the game the way we do?", and "how did the game spread all around the world?" and lots of other related questions. The answers to those questions mostly revolve around the people that play and organize and promote the sport. So an organization to recognize those who have made outsized contributions to the game's invention, organization, promotion, etc, and to detail what some of those contributions were, seems like a very good and helpful idea to record some of that history.

Personally, I can't really see why we should wait to do something like this. It seems to make alot more sense to start early, while the details of this history are still fresh, while the people that the HoF will recognize are still around and available to share their recollections. Why wait till somebody is dead and gone to say "thank you for what you've done"?

Take Ken for example. He's been around the sport now for a relatively long time (relative to the majority of people currently playing [at least, in freestyle...] ), and he's played all over the world, and has seen and done many 'firsts', and he said:

1. Similar to what Nasty Nate pointed out, I don't know many of the people on the list.

All this time in the game, a sport we still think of as being very young, and yet there is still so much of the history of the sport that is unknown to him. Well, thanks to the HoF, he at least can read a little about those people and learn what was done in the 1970's, 80's, and early 90's that had come together to make footbag what it was in the late 90's when he stepped into the game and began to observe first hand what will eventually become his own recollections of the history of the sport.

Now, he personally knows some of the people in the HoF, and so knows about some of that history, but even those people he knows, with one or two exceptions, weren't there in the first decade -- Pete, Tuan, and Eric only began playing in the 1980's -- so who helped the game along before that? Who carried the torch and kept the game going so that there was even a game to be found and learned by Pete, Tuan, and Eric, back before the internet, when info was spread by news letters (and I'm not talking about electronic news letters either, but the kind somebody had to type and mail).

I have a tendancy to babble, to go on and on much longer than I had initially intended. Sorry. I suppose I've already made my point.

One last comment though, directly at Jeremy's post: what would be the benefit of delaying something like the HoF, putting it off till later? What exactly is the point of that? Do we really need to say to ourselves "we're too new and too small to take what we do seriously and to record some history for later"? I understand that you think important things have happened in the history of footbag that have gone unnotice by the people currently involved with the HoF, that they may continue to go unnoticed by the HoF for quite some time. Well, those oversites may get correctly over time. But I don't think we need to wait for those North American footbag pioneers to catch up with the history of footbag in Australia in order to get their organization going. If it seems unfair now, it can be made up for later. But that doesn't seem like a compelling reason to put the whole thing off for another few decades.

[Jeremy]

2 reasons;

1. In 100 years time there will be over 500 members of the hall of fame. While it's great that all these people are recognised, the larger the group is, the less meaningful the recognition.

2. Footbag has very very limited resources. Look at the state of the freestyle rules, and how many people are making an effort to have them updated (nobody). Is spending time on the hall of fame an important use of resources, or could those people spend their time on something more practical. What good does the HOF do for the development of footbag? Shouldn't the priority be to get our house in order before we start celebrating people's achievements?

[atze]

There used to be a nice site hosted by footbagcanada displaying pictures and small articles on all HoF members. It is not officially on the web anymore, but you can still find it:

http://www.footbagcanada.com/hof01.htm

Personally I really enjoyed browsing through it and reading some of the stuff. I hope it will be maintained somewhere else in the future.

Anyway, my thoughts on the subject are that I am sure that those people getting inducted in the HoF feel proud an honored. Being recognized by the past pioneers of the sport and receiving credit for the work you have done is a good thing. Footbag has so little to offer in return for peoples involvement that I think the HoF is a good institution. And if people are willing to invest time into it then so be it.

Personally I remember how proud I was when I received the Mike Marshall Memorial Award at Worlds 2001 and I think its a pity that it is no longer given out to people. It really motivated me to continue my work on the organizational side of footbag.

[ville]

There used to be a nice site hosted by footbagcanada displaying pictures and small articles on all HoF members. It is not officially on the web anymore, but you can still find it:

http://www.footbagcanada.com/hof01.htm

Actually it was just moved to http://www.footbag.org/reference/-/Groups:HOF

[Senor Grommet]

Rather than criticize the HOF, people should be criticizing each other for being so fucking knowledgeless about the sport of footbag. To me, it is absolutely absurd that players today know NOTHING about the history of the sport they play. I mean, to admit you know nothing about its history is to admit you're a completely freestyle-self-absorbed bastard who only wants to hit tricks. I guess i used to be like this . . . for about a week.

In any case, the HOF is interesting. In most sports, you need to have been retired from the game for a certain number of years, however, in Footbag, you can still be an active player and be an HOF member.

Think about this: if there was no HOF today, how many of you would have access to learning about the history of our fine sport? The HOF not only serves a purpose to honor those who have done exceptional things for our sport, it also helps to propagate current players' knowledge of the history of footbag, which as we know, is sorely lacking. Many of today's players don't even know who Ryan Mulroney is.

Steve Goldberg IS in the HOF by the way, for whoever made that post above.

[Outsider]

Oh great... two Jeremys in one thread...

Anyway, Mirken, I'm fairly certain Bob Riefer knows that Steve Goldberg IS in the HoF. I think he was using Goldberg as an example of an exceptional person who should be in the HoF despite not being a top tier player -- how, in Bob's opinion, the HoF should be primarily about the best players, with a very limited number of exceptions for extraordinary promoters like Goldberg.

Jan,

I'm sorry to say I was unaware that you had won the Mike Marshal award. Please allow me to be the 639th to offer my congratulations. In all seriousness, I am glad to hear it, and I certainly agree that it is about as prestigious an award as we have in our little game. I remember being almost a total newb at my first Worlds in Portland '97, and being very impressed by the whole to-do over the MM award that year. I may be mis-remembering the whole thing, but that year they had an Opening Ceremony at Worlds to introduce the staff to everybody else, to spell out some ground-rules and codes of conduct, etc, and, if I recall, they gave out the MM at the opening ceremony that year, and it went to Goldberg. Again, if memory serves, it was his second MM award, and he is still the only person to win the MM twice (first time was for his efforts to move World Championships out of Golden Colorado and make it a touring event (first two stops -- San Francisco, CA -- Goldberg's turf.) Though I don't ever expect to win such an award (I'm far to lazy and disorganized to ever be the promoter that I'd like to be), the whole thing -- just the idea of having such a thing -- made a big and lasting impression on me at that time too, and I feel a deep respect for the idea of the award and for any who are even nominated for it.

I was also disappointed when the Mike Marshall award seemed to disappear for a while. I thought it was too good of an idea to let disappear. But for your information, Jan, the Mike Marshall Award was given out at Worlds this year. They gave it to Chris Ott, primarily for his work on hosting Worlds, though conceivably it was also something of a "lifetime acheivement" thing... (at least, I'd hope it was, given my over-all impression of Worlds itself this year... [it was a nice facility and all, but there we were in one of the biggest tourist destinations on the planet, and really hardly anybody actually saw us tucked away in the back-room of most distant corner of that magic kingdom. One of the best features, IMO, was having our own little footbag neighborhood at Casa Verde, and that not only had nothing to do with the official organizers, but also succeeded in virtually splitting the population in half each night. Lastly, personally I'd much rather spend my nights and off-days touring some cool new city instead of that over-commercial over-priced artificial kiddie-world -- daydreaming about Worlds in Barcelona or Rome... please excuse my rant )

Anyway, I can't seem to keep myself from throwing out a few more unnecessary responses... O'Wheel, the present rate of inductees cannot necessarily be extrapolated out that far. It doesn't necesarily follow that the HoF will keep admitting people at the same rate that they already have been. It could be decided somewhere later along the way that the people who got footbag started -- who made something out of nothing -- deserve proportionately greater recognition than those of the generations that follow, who already have so much to work with, so to speak. Inductions could well be slowed to a pace that you are more comfortable with...

And Bob Riefer, along similar lines, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Footbag HoF will continue to show the same "bias" towards event promoters over time. It is at least conceiveable that as footbag grows larger it may also become profitable and self-sustaining, and so the relative value of promoting and spreading the game may decrease. But, for now, this "bias" in favor of recognizing promoters in equal (or greater) measure to players seems perfectly appropriate to me -- players may work hard, but they're basically in it for fun and glory, and the high you get from busting hard and being awesome. But promoting, presently (as you well know) is all work and no play, plus unrecouped expenses for the sake of everyone elses's good times and a cash reward to a small handful of talented hedonists. I don't know about you, but I find holding a serious event to be back-breaking and stressful and, ultimately, relatively expensive. For now, thats what I call making a substantial sacrifice on behalf of footbag. I don't know for certain, but I can well imagine that today's biggest promoters of basketball reap substantial monetary rewards for their efforts, so its unfair to compare the HoF of a professional sport to our own humble affair. I mean, conceivably, pro-sports promoters don't even have to be especially interested in those games -- they could just be in it for the money, but thats much more difficult to imagine in the case of footbag at present. I don't feel like I'm expressing this idea as eloquently as I'd like right now, but I think you get my drift.

[C-Fan]

*BITTER POST WARNING*

Slight off-topic question: what's the criteria for the Mike Marshall Award? The nominee's at worlds last year were:

*Chris Ott, I think for hosting Worlds that year? Like Jon, I hope it was for more than this, but it wasn't clear.
*Dan Ednie, for promoting footbag in Australia.
*Wiktor Debski for getting a footbag videogame made for a cellphone company.
*Somebody else?

I also remember the description of the award criteria being something like: "to the person who has contributed the most to the spread/promotion of footbag over the last 5 years" or something like that.


Now, while I consider all the nominees my friends, and I feel they have done good things for footbag, I also felt like the Japanese scene and myself were seriously disrespected for not even being mentioned or nominated.

In 2002, there was no real scene outside of North America, Europe, and Oceania. Did nobody care that now Japan regularly sends 10 players a year to Worlds, who compete and do well? That Japan has hosted over 10 tournaments in that time? That Takumi and Kenzo are borderline BAP? That there is actually a group of non-white people who play footbag now? Was the Pepsi Twist campaign, where footbags were given out with every bottle of pepsi for a 2 month period during the summer of 2003 not one of the biggest promo campaigns in footbag history? What about the first footbag tournament in Asia, where 1st place in freestyle took home $1000?

All bitterness aside, the fact that Team Japan and myself were not even mentioned for the award, especially compared to the caliber of contributions of the other nominees, made me really feel like the Mike Marshall Award is a joke.

*BITTER RANT OVER*

[jon]

To me, it is absolutely absurd that players today know NOTHING about the history of the sport they play. I mean, to admit you know nothing about its history is to admit you're a completely freestyle-self-absorbed bastard who only wants to hit tricks.

I know little about the history of the sport. Ohhhh nooooes. I play for fun and to hang out with good people. I apologize.

[atze]

good to hear the MM is back, thanks for that info.

ken: i completely feel for you. but probably everyone thinks you're not stoked on awards and recognition and stuff, what with your BAP history

[Jeremy]

Yeah I have to say that it seems like, at least in the case that I know of, that the people giving out the awards actually have no idea what the people's influence on footbag in that region is, and I know from past histories how that sounds, but I think if you disagree you should talk to any of the long standing players in Australia about that; don't take my opinion on it.

Regarding Jeremy M's point; the attitude I always try to have is; don't think about what other people can do to fix a problem, think about what you can do.

Now I'm very critical of religion, but I don't just make criticism, I'm very active in the Secular Party of Australia, as well as doing all kinds of actual actions to try and reduce the influence of religion on Australian politics. I'm a strong environmentalist, and so I work for half what I could be earning in a corporate job for Australia's largest environmental charity. I think the IFPA is the only thing that makes footbag a sport and is absolutely critical to the development of footbag, and so I volunteer to help as much as I can. I'm not saying all this because I want any recognition for it; I don't care about that at all. I'm saying this because if you think there's a problem with people not knowing enough about footbag; what are you doing about that problem? Are you trying to educate people about all those people?

It seems to me that a massive problem in footbag is the way many people have opinions on many things, but only a handful of those people actually go beyond "raising awareness of those problems" and actually try to fix the problems. Now I know I mentioned this in my criticism of the HOF but I also think it's important to note that I've had some minor involvement in support the HOF and in a couple of years when certain people are eligible I will definitely be nominating them. As I've said, it's too late to change things, and so I'm going to work with the system. But Jeremy; what involvement have you had with the HOF? Have you written any submissions supporting anybody's nomination? Have you nominated anybody? You're criticising people for being critical; but what are you doing to actually change things? I think criticism is very important, but I also think it's only the first step, and if people don't go on from there, it's really just a waste of time.

[Senor Grommet]

But Jeremy; what involvement have you had with the HOF? Have you written any submissions supporting anybody's nomination? Have you nominated anybody? You're criticising people for being critical; but what are you doing to actually change things? I think criticism is very important, but I also think it's only the first step, and if people don't go on from there, it's really just a waste of time.

I've had absolutely no involvement with the HOF- I have not written submissions- I have never attended a ceremony.

I am not criticizing people for being critical. I am criticizing people for being ignorant.

As I found myself reading some of the above posts, I found that I knew most, if not all, of the answers to those questions. By the time I stumbled onto this thread however, most questions had already been answered.

Whatever, I am over it. I can see how my first post was harsh, but the intent of the post was to criticise today's players for a;ck of historical knowledge. I guess it is just something I find interesting, that most players do not care about.

I am using my time and money to support footbag in other ways.

[Ners]

Wiktor Dębski was nominated for Mike Marshall Award? I didn't know that, cool. On a side note, I wonder if people outside Poland (maybe excluding Czech Republic) know who started it all in here

I think the HOF is as good thing, but maybe there should be less people there (as it was stated previously, the more members, the less recognition). It also looks like it will get more international, right now it's clearly dominated by the USA. It should be a global thing, but I guess it's hard to work on this level, since we're still very unorganized locally.

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable as it comes to history of our sport, but from what I see, in Poland I'm an exception. Not many people really take this seriously (even when it comes to the short history of the sport in our country)

About the criteria for the HOF - I would lean towards having people involved in the organization side, and then maybe best players. The reasons were mentioned before - without those hard-working people footbag would probably still be in the States exclusively.

Just my two cents.

Pozdrawiam
Szymon Kałwak (Ners)