Iron History with Joe Roark

Joe Roark's IronHistoryArchives.com

The HUGE library of Iron History compiled by Joe Roark.

Welcome to Iron History with Joe Roark!

Joe Roark has been studying the iron game since 1957, and by 1970 began a systematic gathering of information on index cards. By the time his first computer was acquired, there were several hundred thousand references to be typed into it.
For a few years he published his own newsletter called MuscleSearch: The Roark Report. By 1992 he was appointed as the IFBB Men's Bodybuilding Historian, and began writing about history for FLEX in his column Factoids. For ten years he contributed to Iron Game History from the U of Texas at Austin. Recently he also began writing All Our Yesterdays for FLEX.
His passion has always been the period between 1880 and 1920, with particular emphasis on the oldtime strongmen of that era. Joe will be offering bits of history for Cyberpump once per week, and the text will be relevant to the dates of the calendar for those events of yesteryear relevant to the coming week.
In this column, readers will also be able to ask Joe questions or comment on his posts. Note: The comments are solely for interaction between Joe and the readers only -- not reader to reader.

5/28/2010: No Need To Fear: ( it's only the truth) by Joe Roark
Thursday, May 27, 2010
No Need To Fear: ( it's only the truth) by Joe Roark
Many years ago it appeared that in the history of the iron game at that time there was an impending disconnect, about which I wrote, fearing that the shallow research then going on, and likely to continue, coupled with relaxed demands for proof of performance, would lead to continuing wrong and widespread misinformation.
Now, the disconnect is no longer pending; it arrived un-announced, with no parade of noise and clatter, but with a muted, although hostile takeover, and has embedded itself in the fabric as fact while actually being folklore, in entrenched and stubborn ways. Myths which should have been shown to be such, are still being espoused as though they have merit, because, one assumes, it is easier to accept what the tendentious touts offer, than to pursue a study of the matter. Besides, why would 'experts or 'leaders' in the game offer you anything less than studied and documented 'facts' about lifting history or other claims?
Assertions that are claimed to be well documented, starve, lacking ANY evidence feeding them. When asked for proof, none of the supposed documentation surfaces even though the claims are widespread -and therefore you should assume them to be -it is implied- true.
One reason offered for letting sleeping dogs lie is that some of the men involved in these myths have died, so it would be disrespectful to highlight the erroneous lifts. What could be gained after all by exposing the devious deeds of dead men? How about truth- is that a worthy gain? If no false claims had been made, no corrections would be needed- it is that simple. Otherwise, if death can protect myths, then lift, commit suicide, and enter the record books, forever immune from question. We will honor you by remaining silent even when your claims scream for corrections, and when no lifter, even decades later can approach the city limits of your claimed strength.
The iron internet, which faced a Y in the road years ago, has too often chosen the wrong fork. Lifts which were never proven were mentioned often enough on so many sites that the combined repetition offered a false reality, as though repeating the parallel lines of error would at some future distance come to a provable point. But the point was simply to continue claiming that repetition was in fact proof, although it was of course only repetition at search-engine-strength.
A tabula rasa is an open slate, an empty tablet- an open mind, and the absence of these three qualities regarding our attitude in studying ironhistory, is what has plopped us into the mire in which we now find ourselves. Investigations should begin with a neutral mindset, then drive forward following evidence, until it is necessary to reverse course when supporting evidence cannot be found or runs dry. If along the journey conflicting evidence is found, or claimed support for a feat is shown to in fact be improvable, then the true student will incorporate such findings and refocus toward wherever the evidence, or lack of it, leads. He will NOT discover facts which change the common belief and then hide those facts, and he will not upon realization there is not now and never was any evidence for certain claims, silently allow the misconceptions to continue unchallenged.
This is a difficult undertaking which would send some claims to the undertaker. Or should.
Does it really matter who lifted how much decades ago? That is your decision from your point of view. But if it does not matter, then stay out of the argument. By jumping into the debate you imply it matters.
Now, what shall we say of those, who knowing that they are continuing to praise false lifts, offer no apology, or regret? We say they are shallow and pathetic. Why would anyone, in any field of study, deliberately continue to promote a false deed? Of course, money is one motive, but in the context of this situation, one wonders if more money would be made by telling the truth and realigning history. Perhaps another reason would be to save one's own reputation by keeping the facts hidden.
On one occasion, a man wrote to me to say (after reading some of my work) that he did not believe in 'revisionist' history- which he thought I was guilty of, having questioned a lift that had been world famous for half a century. I replied that I DO believe in revising written history IF it was reported incorrectly in the first place. Never revise away from truth, always revise toward truth. Of course, he offered no proof, just his opinion., and did not respond to my comment. Of such people I ask, 'Of what are you fearful- it is only truth?'
One tactic offered by those who cannot prove a lift, is to point to other, proven lifts by the same lifter, then assert that if he could hoist this much in lift A, then why couldn't he hoist a given amount in lift B? This question overlooks the fact that a question is not an answer. This ploy of ignoratio elenchi amounts to a smoke screen because the proven lifts are not in question but the unproven lifts are, and the further subterfuge that since lifter C was so much stronger than lifter D and we know lifter C managed a given amount in a certain lift, then surely you will agree that lifter D could lift a given percentage more. No I would not agree without proof, and even if I were inclined to agree my agreement proves nothing.
Frankly, it amuses me that such diaphanous detours have been afforded any merit at all, but they have been. After all, a given lifter may have been a 'good' man. Of course, good in this context if the lifter deliberately reported false lifts, must umbrella in the quality of lying, which seems, after all, to deflate the definition of good. We all compartmentalize out lives- good in some aspects, less honorable in others, and this is okay so long as we don't offer transfer passes from one to the other simply because good exists within us, and we want to mask the bad by reference to the good. Character matters, bad character splatters.
Another method used to maintain merit in unproven lifts is to attack the person asking for proof. How dare anyone suggest that what has been regaled for decades would not have a firm basis. But when proof of that firm basis is requested, the only thing forthcoming is fuming, or perhaps lies about the character of the questioner. If the questioner were indeed mostly, or even if possible ALL EVIL, the question is not! A lie whispered by a saint, or a lie via loudspeaker from the devil, remains a lie. Shouting against a question does not change the denouement. And to ascribe to a neutral investigator that he is trying to traduce a person by simply seeking truth shows more a paucity of proof, and a questionable character on the part of the angry man than an interest in knowing what really happened. Truth cannot be good or bad- actions can- but the truth of a matter is the essence of that matter and should be reported as is (or as was) without worry as to how the claimant will be judged if exposed.
So, let's drop the jejune jousting and try instead to impale the lies, thereby giving credit to the lifters who in reality can offer or have offered for them, verification that they indeed lifted what they claimed. What never happened, cannot be removed because it never existed- except in the minds of those too lazy to study. But at least we can stop maintaining that unproven lifts should share honor with proven lifts.
On my website, my members have corrected errors I have made- some errors have been simple typos, others have been more embarrassing to me because I should have known better, and in some cases did know better but slipped up anyway. When corrections are aimed at me, I do not perform a rain dance hoping to wash away any trace residue of my mistakes. I simply publicly thank the person correcting me, and move on, trying to remove the egg from my face, and make an attempt to do better. I defy anyone to locate an occasion wherein I have been corrected and had a response other than gratitude. When I correct my members I expect the same response because our common goal is truth. Anyone who knowingly fights truth should be so embarrassed from his brain churning that the inside of his forehead should be scorched. But that would require a conscience, which would not be present in people who at their core know they are lying, or furthering a lie.
Some people lie about their age. Why? Perhaps if you are in a given shape or condition at age 60, that same shape and condition would be more impressive if you claimed another decade of age? Some people claim to be stronger than they are, others claim to be older than they are. In either case, anyone who knows the truth and decides to conceal it - perhaps because having fallen for the trick age and publicly endorsed it, now has facial egg also, but rather than man-up and say oops, they bury (and therefore continue) the error. When such people are 'leaders' (please allow the poetic license) in the iron game the shame is - or should be- all the greater because of the power they have to spread falsity.
The lodestar of lifting should be to have and to maintain accurate records. Errors should be prevented, records should be substantiated before being accepted or publicized, but if later a mistake is found, simply say sorry, announce the correction and move on. Whether we will ever verify claims from a century ago is questionable, but it is unforgivable in the current realm of instant communication and cameras to not verify every major record lift of note.

Posted by TheEditor @ 09:27 PM CST
5/21/2010: Letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark October 19, 1988
Friday, May 21, 2010
Letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark October 19, 1988
Dear Joe,
Thanks for many things-- for the letter, the return of the Shoulder Bit material, for the Doug Hepburn 'article', the post card and news of the wedding. Hope that went off fine and the bride and groom will be happy-- really somthing to hope for in this lovely world we live in.
Enclosed is a copy of The BACK HANG GAZETTE run by Tony Cook. I am sending it since a statement by you in your latest REPORT to the effect that the Bent Press is a dead issue these days and not used any more, isn't quite so. It is alive and well, and possibly flourishing. Tony's little pot boiler is shoved out quarterly, and I do suggest you drop him a line. He may not reply directly but will do so in the pages of his mag. You might get sufficient to make a page or three for the report. Anyway, it is well worth having since it does take a very strong stand against steroids and for the lifter.
The Hepburn article disappointed me --what? Charlie Smith is non existent and had nothing to do with Doug winning the title. Can this be so? I did of writing to Lambert, but then, he is another of these cultured gents who doesn't reply to letters-- at least, not to those he thinks of people who are of no importance. I imagine if I was Weider or some well known lifter, he'd be kissing my arse in three quarter time.
Angry at my stiff being stolen by this guy named Brown? A rather delicate way of describing my utter rage. And it is STILL going on. Brother Lambert seems to have caught the disease. He already, by chance or otherwise, took a title from one of my series-- SO YOU WANT TO BE A WEIGHTLIFTER, called it 'So You Want To Be A Powerlifter' and had it in one of the Wonder Boy's mags M&F with the format of the article the same as my series on the three Olympic lifts. Then in the latest M&F he has an article on the MULTI POWER MACHINE, ascribing its invention to Weider-- it was MINE and I never got a penny for it. The article is also written in such a way that I KNOW he read my series on the piece of equipment, THE SCIENCE OF THE MULTI POWER MACHINE. But, of course, no mention of me.
By some strange chance, on the day the mag arrived, the Master Blaster phoned me. Said he had just got my letter I had WRITTEN IN MARCH that he was (again) bringing me to L.A. 'SOON.' I called him over the Multi Power article, saying that he knew very well it was my idea for the machine and didn't he have the common decency to set the matter straight. His reply. 'Well, they do that to me. They don't mention that I INVENTED THE FORCED REPS AND THE SPLIT ROUTINE.' At this point words failed me -- a rare occasion--since these so called principles were being used decades before the Wanking Wunder was lifting anything heavier than a baby's bottle.
You now have all the Aussie mags in my possession. That is all that were published before it ceased. Modra, so I am told, has lost his all.
Now for some advice. Please do not take this as criticism Joe. I do think you are very mistaken in continuing to mention that you may not continue with the REPORT. Or that you are becoming a tad disenchanted with putting it out. This is an error, since people will not feel inclined to subscribe to a mag that looks as if it might go out of business.
Bill Lowry. To what do you refer when you ask if I have found his writing reliable. True, in the old days I did read him in the old H&S. and it is also true that he did a lot for British lifting as an official and guardian of the BAWLA. He had a reputation for being very straightforward, although somewhat strict and 'hew to the line' where his reffing was concerned. He was another of those 'distant' British officials before whom the lifters qualied(sic) and trembled. I am sure that George Kirkley could tell you more about his personal life than I. George does answer letters, although some months after you write him. A reason here, since he is having lots of bother with his wife, who has been non compos mentis for some time now, and George has to take care of her, being unable to leave her on her own. Great pity. George is a good guy.
Yes, you did ask me about Joe Price--A North County of England Chap. I have heard of the Vulcan Curse(sic)- a take off of Edward Aston's Anti-Barbell Leverage course-- ain't nottin new Joe. I know little re the marketing of it apart from Pullum being in some way connected with it. Sly old Bill.
I know full well you can't speak for Lambert and as to whom he does or does not write. My comments were made to display my frustration and annoyance at the plain discourtesy of some people.
[I will not identify this man because as it turns out there was a solid and understandable reason for the behavior explaining in the next few words]
BE CAREFUL OF THIS BIRD. He is all for himself and the hell with others. Willoughby hadn't been dead a week when he was pestering Carol asking how much she wanted for David's collection. No rumor this. I have SEEN THE LETTER HE WROTE. It is in the [Todd-McLean] Collection. May be I am too straight laced for my own good, but this sort of thing rubs me the wrong way. Where I come from, this is looked on as in very poor taste.
Please write, Best, Chas.

Posted by TheEditor @ 06:29 PM CST
5/14/2010: Another Letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Dear Joe,
Thanks for yours of the 19th reaching me on the 22nd. Nice to hear from you.
Yes, I already had heard of the MD sale-- got it about three days or so after the deal had been consummated. I also understand that York is to have five years free advertising in the mag. I was also told that the new owners-- a vitamin and food supplement company plan to distribute the mag in their many stores. Don't know if there is a scintilla of truth to this.
And there does appear to be some reason to believe that the business and foundry will be sold. I am given to understand that, settle Grimek's suit or no, this will be done, since the 'Heirs' seem to be unable to obtain a meeting of the minds. The son of Dietz is now President of the company. When it came to a vote among the people who owned the voting stock, Alda Ketterman, so I am told--and again don't know if this is true or not-- voted with Dietz Junior and against Terpak. May be just rumor.
Personally, I don't think Grimek stands a prayer. He has nothing to go on. I will say I think he was treated most poorly and I can think of no one in the York organization who contributed what he did. By his merely being there, he WAS YORK.
I am enclosing the Belt Squat deal. The article was written in 1952 and appeared in the October edition of MUSCLE POWER in that year. The British mag, STRENGTH ATHLETE published my article under the name of Graham Brown in their December 1986, January 1987 issue. As you can see it is word for word.
The key to the whole deal is my mention of the fact that I was over 40 years of age when I wrote it. Thos obviously led Brown to believe that I was long gone and thus he could steal safely. I chanced on his theft by accident when I was leafing through some mags in the COLLECTION. I also drew the Reverend's attention to it and he bristled as did I.
I wrote to Brown and flat out accused him of stealing my article. He wrote back to say that it had been published 'by accident' since he had given the mag to a 'friend' who had sent the article in under his name as a 'joke'. I wrote back and told him not to insult my intelligence and demanded satisfaction else I would sue him. He answered and told me he had indeed stolen my article and would I please have mercy on him. My reply was a fast 'fuck you'. Plus pay up or else. He PAID UP. But the mag was quite horsey about it, saying they had published the article in 'Good Faith'. That Mr. Brown was not paid for the article and I should address my complaints to him. I knew of course that an international lawsuit would be prohibitive in cost. So I wrote back and told them to send me the address of their attorney since I intended to pursue the matter further. They did indeed get their attorneys to contact me. When they did I just sat back and paid no heed to the letters they sent me every month for six months. My reasoning was that if I couldn't get any money out of them for what they did, then at least it would cost them something. In all I got six letters from their attorneys asking me to reply to them and supply them with proof I authored the article. I just ignored them, knowing that for each letter written to me, a substantial fee would be collected. So it cost the mag far more than their giving me a nominal amount and publishing an apology. It seems this mag is in the habit of taking other peoples' articles and publishing them without a with your leave or a by your leave. They did it with Darden, Todd, Tanny and Hatfield.
Thus you have the story. Anyway, copy the material and return. Thx.
The Olympics have been conspicuous by the absence-- apart from token shots -- of lifting. They did show Sulimanov cracking five world records. He made a new snatch record with 330, then busted that with a 336 odd, then hit a new world record c & j with 415, then made another directly after with 418-3/4 and a new world record total. He was sixty pounds ahead of anyone. But the lifting was marred by two Bulgarians being shot out of the gold medal, after they had won their classes, because of failing the drug tests. Mostly, what I have watched has been a plethora of basketball- ad nauseum-- volleyball, diving and gymnastics. Wrestling, my particular pride and joy, hasn't been shown at all. Now, of course, track and field is all you see. Very little boxing has been shown and the only prolonged interlude of fisticuffs was that disgraceful affair of the Koreans jumping into the ring and punching the ref out for a decision he didn't make. The five judges did.
Getting back to the Shoulder Belt. I opened a copy of the Wunderkind's MUSCLE AND FITNESS and in a back page, saw to my intense rage, an ad for the SHOULDER BELT with a 'patent pending' in the ad. I called the number given and found it was an accommodation number. I told the bloke, without mentioning why I was calling to get the advertiser to phone me pronto. He did. I chewed his arse out and said I was gonna sue. He said nothing in reply, didn't even defend himself. Shortly after this he stopped advertising. But I understand that from time to time the ad does reappear again. I wrote to the Wanking Wunder and chewed his ass out. He phoned and disclaimed any knowledge of the ad. I said 'tell that to some other poor mug' and he then said he'd 'look into it'. Frankly I am of the opinion he didn't do a damn thing but check his bank balance.
When someone tells you that info is 'READILY AVAILABLE', the right question to ask is 'WHERE?'.
You say Mike Lambert is a 'very fine fellow'. May be. Maybe. But that hasn't been my experience. I have sent him several items, hoping to grease the way to my contributing articles to the mag. NO REPLY. I also wrote him asking if I could contribute and what he paid. Outlined my career and what I had done and who I was, without bragging or dressing things up. NO REPLY. This pisses me off tremendously. It is damn rude. It is bloody discourteous. Common decency would dictate that a reply be made if it only tells you to go to hell in a wheelbarrow. NO REPLY. The old excuse is always trotted out. Too busy with the mag. BULLSHIT. I had my fingers in 14 mag pies and never was too busy to improve public relations and answer every letter that came across my desk.
Re the smoked salmon merchant. He is a prick. He thinks he is exercising mental adroitness whereas he is only being sly and cunning. Beware of him. He usually begins his letters with a load of laudatory remarks, then hits you up for info, which will then appear UNDER HIS NAME in one of his books. Beforehand he promises you something-- as with me and the smoked salmon.
My relationship with him came about when he asked me for advice. He then sent me some of his articles. I was so appalled with his syntax that I sent him a book, 'THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE' by a cat named Strunk.
I don't know if you have seen his book co-authored with Kennedy, but it is a load of hogwash and deceptive in that it promises something it never delivers--NEW, SECRET BODYBUILDING METHODS. I found it filled with stuff culled from other mags and articles, including a 'Principle' he called The 'Subtle' Method. This consists of adding one ounce washers to the bar instead of the customary two and a half pound plates. I called him on this one, saying it had first been published in Henry Atkin's British Mag VIGOUR (new defunct) and he admitted that he had got it out of IM. I again wrote back and pointed out Atkin had written about it in the early fifties, but TWENTY years before that, it was being used in the UK by lifters who didn't even bother to tell others about it. They having tried it and found no merit contained therein.
I am sure he thinks that by continually promising me smoked salmon, he will have a 'nevercease' flowing fount of information. However I wrote him in reply to his last missive and told him, stop shooting the shit and send the salmon. I doubt if I will ever hear from him again.
He wanted me to write a chapter for his new book on training after4 forty. I said gladly, but not for just the credit he said he'd give me. I said, 'Since I am a professional lifting writer, my fee will be 750 bucks with all rights retained by me'. No answer.
I know Slim and his stunt. This is ho hum stuff to me since it has been done so many times before and by so many people and in so many ways that you must forgive my blah attitude. Aston used it in his Anti Barbell stuff and Jowett copied him and Schmidt copied him and I don't doubt the people copied it before Aston and will go on copying it long after you and I have gone.
Re Inch. I have a couple of bird dogs in England raking up, or trying to, rake up stuff on Inch. What I get I'll send to you. Don't know when it will arrive if ever, but you'll get it if and when. Same as with the Aussie mag. I know I haven't ditched them. They are around somewhere, but Christ knows where they are. I guess when I ain't looking for them, I'll find them.
Best to you and yours,
Chas

Posted by TheEditor @ 08:30 PM CST
5/7/2010: Part 2 of the September 15, 1988 letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark
Thursday, May 6, 2010
CASr4 for May 7, 2010
Part 2 of the September 15, 1988 letter from Charles A. Smith to Joe Roark
The reason why the military press was dropped and turned into, first the Olympic Press, then a travesty of all pressing, was because of the difficulty in judging it, caused by the hordes of Russians rushing up to the Jury of Appeal when one of their lifter's presses was turned down by the ref and judges. Finally, in desperation, and instead of showing their moral courage, and telling the Russians to go take a flying copulation at themselves, they gave in to them. Finally the press was shoved out of it altogether.
The present set of power lifts, bench press, squat, and dead lift, were in existence at LEAST 60 to 80 years ago, but not welded together to form a Competition Set of lifts.
The squat has been in use, no, was being used as a competition lift in Europe, particularly GERMANY long before 1920-- in fact in the 1880s and '90s.
The dead lift was also used on the European Continent too. The so called SUMO style of dead lifting, popularly thought of by modern practitioners as 'NEW' is also older than the proverbial hills. First mention of it comes in Ottley Coulter's and Jowett's course and the APollo Course, first put out in 1922. Ottley calls it a new way to dead lift. It wasn't then, it isn't now and it may have been new ONCE, way back in the distant past.
Ditto for the bench press. Joe and I were using that in 1932, a few years before it was mentioned in Mark Berry's books. Joe and I thought we had invented it. But lo and behold, I again saw the bench press mentioned in the same Apollo Course, Ottley advising you to do it on a backless couch if you didn't have a bench. Grimek illustrated it in one of Berry's books in 1934 or 1935.
The dead lift. At one time in British competition, you could raise it to above the knees, stop there with the bar resting just above the knees, on the thighs, adjust your hands, firm your grip, or whatever, then continue the lift to upright position. One condition of competition was that the shoulders must be pulled back and NOT be hung forward. This, now, has changed to one continuous pull to completion.
So, as far as I know, the power lifts, that is the squat, bench press and dead lift as a CONTEST SET, DID NOT COME INTO BEING UNTIL THE LATE 1950s or early 60's. Thus to call a set the strength set BEFORE THAT date or dates, might confuse lifters into thinking that power lifting existed before it really did.
To repeat, the CONTINENTAL SET was known as the POWER STRENGTH SET for a WHILE.
Moral: Don't confuse the old POWER STRENGTH SET, the Continental Set, with the modern POWER SET, the bench, squat and d/l.
Do try and get hold of Pullum's book and see the esoteric lifts-- such as Hold Out In Front, raised from Below. The Hold Out In Front, LOWERED FROM ABOVE. The Two Hands Swing. The Two Hands Anyhow With DUMBBELLS and the Lateral Raise Lying were being used to crack records.
In those wonderful and guilt and fraud free days, if one fancied oneself for a record break, he had to send in an application to the Lifting Committee, stating when and where he would make the attempt and who would be there, AND if a meet would also be held at the same time. The committee members would then meet and decide if the attempt could be made or not-- permission was almost always granted, and in fact I can't recall an occasion when it wasn't-- given that is.
So far as I am concerned, THERE IS NOTHING NEW. Lifts have evolved from what they were either because of political expediency or else sheer bloody moral inertia, as in the case of the two hands military press.
They had a set of rules before them, rules which had been followed and successfully, for decades, but it got too tiring, too much of a hassle, what with audience participation, the bellowing of the Russians, soon aped by other Eastern Bloc Countries, and now we have but two lifts, and talk of the Snatch being doneaway with, AND steroids. Ugh.
I had hear that Lincir has got a lot of Batchelor's material as well as splitting Bert Elliot's stuff with someone else-- Harry Hill or some such was it?
Reg Park hasn't written to me in at least 3 years. Funny how friends are forgotten, or else dropped because they are no longer of use to you. Ho hum.
I knew Reg had the Inch Challenge dumbbell, but didn't know what had happened to it. I understand that Reg and Inch were cozy at one time.
I shall not be attending the Old Timers' Bash in NYC. They are honoring a man I think of as nothing more than a male whore. Again UGH.
I know Slim Farman and his stunt.
Re Joe Price and he and Pullum working on the Vulcan Course. Another instance of cashing in on someone else's idea. This sort of stuff was first put out by Edward Aston who called it the ANTI BARBELL COURSE, utilizing the leverage principle. That honest despoiler of other peoples' ideas and brains, G.F.J. also shoved out a similar course with oblong weights on the end of a ridged bar.
Adrian Schmidt's Schmidt Machine was based on the same leverage principle. Aston died in his 80s working as a porter at London's Billigsgate Fish Marker DAED BROKE. The world just isn't fair.
Best, Chas [PS: Would appreciate a mention if you use any of my info in your articles.]

Posted by TheEditor @ 08:39 PM CST