# On Killing



## sapper332

Lt Col Dave Grossman has hit the nail on the head. For those of who who want to understand why we kill - or why we have an inherent aversion to killing within our own species - this is the book for you!

   For those who have read it... what do you think? Where do you see yourself with respect to how you would react?


----------



## Infanteer

I think Grossman's book comes short in many respects.   I believe that there is an ingrained resistance to killing, but that it is a societal process and not a biological one.   If history has taught us anything, it is that when the social boundaries against it are removed, man has no problem butchering, raping, murdering, and looting his way across the landscape.   Violence is an instinctive and very powerful survival mechanism.

Read Michael Ghiglieri's The Dark Side of Man when you read Grossman, it will add a different approach and some perspective that might be a bit different than what Grossman has to say.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0738203157/qid=1103769794/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-5233454-0859833?v=glance&s=books

As well, Grossman has released a "follow-up" of sorts to On Killing - it is called On Combat and I assume it moves to look at some of the human processes involved in combat (as opposed to the actual act of killing).   I haven't read it yet, but am going to make the effort due to the interesting work coming out of the notion of "killology".

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0964920514/qid=1103769918/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-5233454-0859833

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## KevinB

Well I like Grossmans work - his workshops shoudl be mandatory for all service personnel


----------



## Marti

I had rather mixed feelings on the book. He made some good points when he talked about death and killing in relation to pop culture and ways in which soldiers' training is designed to overcome the aversion from killing, but I found his arguments about the reluctance to kill a bit too forced. What really stood out was his use of overloaded muskets found on civil war battlefields as evidence of this. I found this contradicted his arguments about crew-served weapons lowering the resistance to killing because of a diffusion in responsibility. Civil war soldiers still fired from closed ranks and should therefore should have felt the same absolution he argues was felt in a pike square, what he considers to be the first crew-served weapon. That's just one example that I still stands out, but overall it's probably a worthwhile read on a subject that hasn't got much attention. I just didn't think he made the most solid case for a definite human aversion to killing.


----------



## KevinB

Here we go again...

 I think the issue with the pike square is that it was visible if you lowered your pike or not...
   With the musket reload issue with many firing around you it was possible to go through the drills and pretend you fired...


----------



## Fusaki

> With the musket reload issue with many firing around you it was possible to go through the drills and pretend you fired...



Or deliberately shoot over the enemy's head...


----------



## Marti

I flipped back through the book to make sure I remembered things correctly, and you're right about "mutual surveillance" being one of the force that made men in a phalanx lower their spears and soldiers in ranks keep loading their muskets. But the main idea of that chapter is the group anonimity crew served weapons provide, specifically that "the closely packed phalanx provided a high degree of mob anonimity". This does not match his example of civil war muskets as it logically should. 

It's a pretty small, trivial point but it certainly has stuck out in my mind and I think shows that despite his outstanding research, Grossman is a little forceful trying to make things fit. It's a good book, but certainly not great.


----------



## Infanteer

It's not so much of the "mutual surveillance" during the battle that actually bothers me about Grossman's theory (infact, that makes alot of sense - peer pressure is a big factor) but the events after the battle that seem to countermand the notion that man has a natural aversion to killing.

For most of history, after the victorious army has routed the enemy, they've proceeded to butcher retreating forces (usually where most casualties come from), rape and slaughter any undefended populace, and generally loot and pillage their way through any poor society caught in the way.   How is it that Grossman's human soldier (that possesses such a resistance to killing) must be pressed into battle and psychologically pressured into killing his fellow man, and then, when victorious, suddenly becomes capable of executing captured enemies, sticking their heads on pikes and putting civilian populations to the sword.

History is chock full of these events.   The Assyrian war machine, victorious Greeks (Read Euripides The Trojan Woman, the original anti-war play), Tamerlane's mountains of skulls, the marauding armies of the Thirty Years War, savage butchery on the American plains between the US Army and Native groups, and the march of the Soviet Army into Germany in 1945.

Why do we have things like the Laws of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions, when Grossman's human would willingly resort to such measures due to an innate resistance to killing?   Dr Jonathan Shay identifies _rage_ as a key component in the undoing of character, an essential characteristic of all the Vietnam vets with PTSD that he treats.   I can't see _rage_ and the _combat berserker_ (See Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character) fitting into Grossman's model of 98% of humans possessing innate resistance to killing and 2% cool-headed, cold-blooded killers - rather, a "Freudian" conflict between the instinctive, animal-like lower brain and the rational, civilized upper brain seem to be competing when the psychological and physical effects of combat crash into the human fighter.

This is why I have never been fully supportive of Grossman's theory and eagerly took on to some of the ideas that Ghiglieri provides.   I still believe that On Killing is very important for identifying factors of motivation - things like the Shalit and Milgram factors.   As well, I agree with Grossman when he states that there exists some sort of aversion to killing; SLA Marshall's work, although flawed, points to conclusions that are too profound to ignore.   However, I think Grossman has it backwards - man does not have a natural aversion to killing which is overcome through social factors (training); rather man is instinctively a very proficient killing machine and society and culture have been formed to act as social, artificial barriers which lead to the _non-firer_.   In cultures where social cohesion is strong and violence is fundamentally frowned upon, the barrier is much more stronger - hence why the non-firer becomes more obvious in our societies. 

However, history seems too quick to prove that once these key social barriers are broken down, the _Dark Side of Man_ is all too eager to take over - turning man into one of the most ruthless killing machines that nature has yet to turn out.

Infanteer


----------



## excoelis

I feel that Infanteer has some very lucid observations in a very cloudy topic.  Bravo! once again my educated friend.

I have read Grossman's works and continue to refer back to them from time to time.  For those wishing some free insight check out this website:

http://www.killology.com/presentations.htm 

I'm not the most educated soldier in the trace, but sure as shit classical and operant conditioning factor into the training process.  Sorry Dave, but probably falls into the 'No shit Sherlock' category.

As far as 'the dark side' is concerned - well suffice to say that from personal experience nature didn't provide me with an aversion to violence - quite the opposite really.  It took a lot - A LOT - of time, maturity, martial arts, military, and social conditioning to push my propensity for violence into the ready bin.

WTF is he using words like specicidal for anyway?  Try saying that 10 times fast  ;D  

Don't get me wrong - I respect his work.  The fact that he teamed up with Bruce K. Siddle, the founder of PPCT/DT shows that he is a forward thinker.  He has also dedicated a lot of time to the profession of arms and law enforcement.  Although I haven't had the pleasure, I have several civilian and military friends that have attended his presentations - a very engaging speaker by all accounts.  He has personally helped a lot of victims in their time of need after violent acts.   Let's face it, he's a shrink and a former grunt - I'm a just a grunt.  Who the hell am I to question his work.

However, like others have stated, read his work with an open mind cuz there is always more than one school of thought.


----------



## Brad Sallows

I wonder how easy it is, given one's emotional state and the noise and smoke of a battalion volley, to consciously know whether one's musket has fired or misfired.  Has anyone looked into the simple explanation that people loaded an unfired musket because they didn't realize they had not fired?

Some investigations of which I read a while back reported that police officers involved in shootouts sometimes were unaware they had instinctively reloaded, and some thought they had fired substantially fewer rounds than in fact were discharged.  If this is true (not just some urban legend), I would tend to look for other explanations than "unwillingness to kill".


----------



## Fishbone Jones

There are numerous cases of civil war muskets and the like being found with four or five loads, one on top of the other.


----------



## KevinB

IICR the "record" was 15 reloads jammed onto of each other... Kind of hard to do by accident.

Interesting as well are the studies on accuracy and casualties - as some battles have gone on much longer than reasonable and tons of survivors more thna there shoudl have been.

I think the theory is that is much easier to kill people in a route for you would not be looking at them as well can think less of them for breaking and running (my logic for the disparity).

I think Infanteer is bang on with "society and culture have been formed to act as social, artificial barriers which lead to the non-firer" - However I think that in "civilised" society is is such a second nature issue that it has found its way into Grossman as a natural state.   If there are any flaw with Grossman it would be that issue that he has concentrated to much on Western Civilization rather than the human race.

USSOC is big into Grossman BTW -


----------



## 54/102 CEF

From the Philadelphia NEws - http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10297778.htm?1c

Soldiers of the 1st Infantry Div in Fallujah think kililng ain't so cool


----------



## eaglebreaker6

On the subject of killing I think that it comes down to the necessity to sevive any given situation if at all possible but some people go to extremes and use thier aggretion negatively against common people . I feel that if you have ever hunted animals and were able to pull the trigger to kill an animal then if some one was going to kill you that would not be a problem for that is what the person is and he or they have reduced themselves to the loest status of a human being .


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I read On Killing in 1998 on the recommendation of the Chaplain at the US Armor School.  He was giving us a lecture on the morale of combat troops and mentioned this book.  This fellow was as much a soldier as a chaplain and an outstanding speaker.  The Fort Knox PX is blessed with an outstanding bookstore and I bought the book that afternoon.  I enjoyed the book and since it was quite popular with the other students (who were similarily inspired to get it) I was able to have some good discussions.

I would strongly recommend On Killing despite any issues with specific arguments because it reveals that an army is not a "system of systems" but rather a group of people who are charged with killing and perhaps being killed.  These are things that do not necessarily come naturally in our civil society (the cause of which I will leave alone for now).  We tend to forget this in peacetime and it rarely if ever comes into our simulations and exercises.  

Cheers,

2B


----------



## FredDaHead

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I wonder how easy it is, given one's emotional state and the noise and smoke of a battalion volley, to consciously know whether one's musket has fired or misfired.   Has anyone looked into the simple explanation that people loaded an unfired musket because they didn't realize they had not fired?



Having never fired a firearm (the closest I've gone was firing an air rifle), and never having seen anything close to combat, I might be completely wrong, BUT... Even with the noise and smoke, wouldn't the shooter feel the recoil when shooting a musket? Like you say in the rest of your post, police officers sometimes reload without noticing, but I find it a bit hard to believe that one would be so stressed (or whichever adjective is the right one) as to not even feel that. I've read about soldiers getting shot and not knowing if/where they've been hit, so that might be the same principle, but anyways.. Someone care to enlighten me?


----------



## jmackenzie_15

The c7 for instance, when you fire a round through the weapon, the gas expelled from the contents of the round igniting, sending it out the barrell, are funnelled back into the weapon forcing the bolt to move and pick up another round out of the magazine automatically.

If a round is misfired,the bolt would simply move forward as per normal, but would stop there, and it would 'feell' the same as a jam.At which point the soldier does his Immediate Action drills to remedy to stoppage.

(if anyone else would care to go into greater detail on the inner workings of a C7 rifle, be my guest )

Basically it just goes click... in my experince, when you have a dud round or a jam or some kind of malfunction, regardless, and the round doesnt go off, its fairly obvious.Whether that sense is decreased during the anxiety of combat, I have no idea, but it being enough so that a soldier wouldnt realize the round didnt fire, I doubt it.

Plus, theres the loud Bang noise, and the recoil of the weapon is enough that if it suddenly disappeared , you would notice something is wrong =p


----------



## Infanteer

I think the post mentioned is bringing up the fact that the adrenal overload from combat may be so intense for some that they would fail to notice that they're not even firing.  Judging from other things I've read of people doing under fire, it certainly is plausible.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>IICR the "record" was 15 reloads jammed onto of each other... Kind of hard to do by accident.

Maybe he was reluctant to pull on another human being, or maybe he was the battalion training aid and consistently forgot a critical step in the procedure or was too slow to complete loading when the orders to level and fire were given.  For example, forget or run out of time to put on a percussion cap - one of the last steps in the loading sequence IIRC - and not much happens.


----------



## muskrat89

Not sure if this has any relevance, but being in the hunting and fishing business, you hear lots of funny things related to "buck fever" and similar adrenaline-pumping situations. I especially hear these types of stories in Hunters' Ed classes. I have heard several instances where an excited hunter, toting a lever action rifle - "levered" every single cartridge out of their rifle (without firing a single one) upon seeing the buck of a lifetime. Another one that stands out is a hunter friend, who in a panic, loaded a Vicks Inhaler into their break-action shotgun, in the heat of the moment. Granted, these individuals didn't have the benefits of hours of "drills", but on the other hand, faltered in situations that were far less than "life or death"....


----------



## pcain

Or he failed to fire once, then realized he was stuck - he couldn't be seen to not be following the firing drill as the soldiers around him repeated it, but couldn't fire, either, in case he blew up the barrel with the multiple cartridges. So he didn't have an option other than to fake his way through the drill, over and over, and hope nobody noticed.


----------



## Infanteer

...anyways, I think it is clear that there are numerous explanations for reloaded rifles in combat that wouldn't fit into the category of "natural aversion to killing"....


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The answer to what will either lead a man kill or not to kill will often depend on the background of the person giving the answer.  Psychologist, sociologists and political scientists will tend to give different answers based on their point of view (the influence of the individual, society or power).

I came across several first hand accounts of of fighting during the First World War as part of a a paper for a course some years back that reveal the complexity of the issue.  In one instance, a British officer is at an OP making a sketch of the German positions.  He can observe a German soldier carrying out personnal hygiene and points him out to the sentry.  The sentry remarks that he had been watching him but had not shot.  It could be argued that the soldier had not shot out of keeping him position secure, but the answen given by the sentry was that the enemy was "just a lousy German."  By lousy he meant that the German was lice infested and was going through the routine of killing the little critters.  He was not a threat and he was also identifiable as a fellow soldier living in terrible conditions.  Would we make the same decision today?

I came across some other accounts of British soldiers killing Germans with spades during trench fighting including some who were trying to surrender.  This tells me that the circumstances of the situation have a lot to do with the decison to kill or not kill (no great discovery but worth pointing out).   Did operant conditioning lead the soldiers to kill enemy soldiers or was something else at work?  

Both situations above show radically different behaviours by soldiers who came from the same society and training system (a sweeping generalization perhaps).  Neither outcome seemed to depend on authority.  Distance seemed to have an inverse effect from the one often given that increased range from the opponent will increase the likelihood of "killing."  The threat posed by the enemy is perhaps a factor, although I need to be careful here.  In the first case the German soldier poses no threat to the sentry.  The Germans killed trying to surrender in the trench did not pose a threat either, although there are cases of people trying to surrender turning on their captors.  What is significant, though, is that these killings happened during a hand to hand melee.  The attackers had little choice but to kill once they entered the trench system and encountered resistance.  Once they started killing or being killed it was hard to automatically turn this off (which might explain the slaughters during routs throughout history).

Trying to explain behaviour as either "natural" or "societal" can lead to some long but often fruitless nature vs nurture debates.  I think that it is very hard to determine what natural behaviour is since we are social beings.  Perhaps Infanteer is on to something as "society" definately does not want people killing each other but an individual can certainly benefit (sometimes simply by surviving).  Society and authority can have an influence one way or another.  Societal influence will tend to reduce the probability of killing (but that may be changing).  Training, group pressures and authority can increase or decrease the probability, but I think that ultimately the situation will dictate.  I think that the issue will defy neat solutions.

Cheers,

2B


----------



## Brad Sallows

Regarding the risks inherent in attempting to surrender during battle, I believe (no evidence, just a belief) that once the killing switch in the mind is turned "on" it is difficult to turn "off" as long as the mind is preoccupied with the emotions of close combat.


----------



## eyre

I've read On Killing a couple of times and just finished On Combat.  I'm a big fan.  On Combat expands upon many of the theories presented in On Killing and actually includes much practical advice.  It is perhaps the best book I've read regarding the nuts and bolts of our profession.  I've had our QM order a bunch of copies and I'm making it professional development reading for all officers and NCOs in 3 PPCLI.  

For those of you in Edmonton, I've got Grossman coming to speak at the PPCLI Leadership Symposium on 14 Mar 05.  I've heard him talk before and it was brilliant.  We may have a small number of seats available, so if you are interested contact 3 PPCLI.

As an aside, Grossman has also delved into science fiction.  His book, The Two Space War, applies many of his theories to a fictional setting 600 years in the future.


----------



## winchable

Just got my copy today along with "About Face" to keep me busy for a while this summer, looking forward to reading it and hoping I'll be able to take this thread a bit further.


----------



## John Nayduk

I've read On Combat and am about half way through On Killing.  I find both books very interesting.  He makes some great points about training troops.  I also found his information on the physiology during heated combat fascinating.  No one talks about what to expect from your own body.  I was lucky enough to hear him speak here in Windsor a few weeks ago.  Very intense fellow.  I would highly reccommend attending his Bulletproof Mind seminars.


----------



## Infanteer

Interesting article in Parameters.

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/03autumn/chambers.pdf

Grossman basically states that although S.L.A. Marshall's research was fabricated, he was correct regarding non-firers.   This article seems to point to the fact (using first hand accounts) that Marshall was quite wrong.

Although I to am a fan of Grossman (modified with some Ghiglieri), I'm not to sure I buy the "non-firer" theory completely.


----------



## reality_therapy

Started ON KILLING a week ago...unfortunately for me I have two other books on the go at the same time so my thoughts may not get post until MUCH later! LOL

I started reading it as research material for my MSW thesis. So far it is very interesting. I appreciate everyones comments b/c I always analysis books critically. I'm never a 'best book for the truth" type reader.


----------



## loyalist

It's been awhile since I've read the book, but what I found most interesting were the alternatives to "fight or flight" that were presented: fight, flight, sumbit or posture. It really adds a whole new level of depth into the equation. Although, after reading it, and coming across my the "flight or fight" concept in my intro to psych class, I must admit that I was tempted to refer my professor to this book.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl

Just finished On Combat.  I like how it expands on the theories presented in On Killing, but is written in a "self help" style.

Lt Col Grossman will be speaking to the 2nd Battalion on 9 Dec.  I'm looking quite forward to it.


----------



## Old Ranger

Almost finished "On Combat" and I can't wait to read "On Killing" to know what he is making reference too.

Understanding "normal" physical and phsycological reactions to situations and how to involve your spouse into understanding of what your going through is a great asset.

Thought I'd resurface this thread since there is allot of good information in this book that might help someone sooner than later.

I've heard his Seminars are very good as well.  a must attend if you can.


----------



## DirtyDog

Ayone got copies of either they wanted to sell?  They aren't the easiest books to get a hold of through Canadian channels.  Specifically "On Killing".


----------



## Burrows

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/35/search?sc=On+Killing%7cGrossman&sf=BookName%7cAuthor


----------



## DirtyDog

Kyle Burrows said:
			
		

> http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/35/search?sc=On+Killing%7cGrossman&sf=BookName%7cAuthor


Excellent.  Thank you.  i could have sworn thta I've checked chapters.

Now to find a copy of "On Combat".


----------



## 1feral1

I got both books off ebay direct from the authors, and personally inscribed.

Ordered them when I was in Iraq through the APO, so shipping was cheap. Money well spent!

The books are great, and answered a lot of questions for me about my own behaviour and emotions during battle.

I would recommend these books to anyone who is going over.

I am sure these books are openly available in decent bookstores above the 49th. There is nothing considered offensive or otherwise in them.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## DirtyDog

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I am sure these books are openly available in decent bookstores above the 49th. There is nothing considered offensive or otherwise in them.


Absolutely, it wouldn't have anything to do with the subject, but the book's relative obscurity means I haven't seen at most popular book outlets and isn't as easily attainable online (amazon, chapters) as some more popular books might be.


----------



## 1feral1

Mate give ebay go.

Cheers
Wes


----------



## DirtyDog

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Mate give ebay go.
> 
> Cheers
> Wes


Yeah, I used to be an avid eBayer, but havn't used it in a few years.  May give it a go again.  I remember back then when we were getting like 60 odd US cents to our dollar and things were still a deal.   now that were almost at par, there must be a ton of deals.


----------



## manhole

the bookstore in the Oromocto Mall carries his books........that's where I got my copies.


----------



## Greymatters

Infanteer said:
			
		

> However, I think Grossman has it backwards - man does not have a natural aversion to killing which is overcome through social factors (training); rather man is instinctively a very proficient killing machine and society and culture have been formed to act as social, artificial barriers which lead to the _non-firer_.



I agree.  this is supported by a small group of behaviour pcyschologists who see childhood not as a method of learning communication and social skills, but taming our anger so that we dont kill each other when provoked.


----------



## TN2IC

Just got the book. 9er got the hint.  ;D


Can't wait to start reading.


----------



## Fraser.g

I had the chance to hear him lecture at the U of S a couple of years ago. He is more impressive in person than he is in his books and that is a hard feat!

If you have read them, do it again, they are so packed with information that you miss some in the first go through. 
If you have not and are in the profession of arms, these are a must read, not a If you want to Read


----------



## Roy Harding

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Absolutely, it wouldn't have anything to do with the subject, but the book's relative obscurity means I haven't seen at most popular book outlets and isn't as easily attainable online (amazon, chapters) as some more popular books might be.



http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/On-Killing-Dave-Grossman/9780316330114-item.html?ref=Books%3a+Search+Top+Sellers


----------



## Scants

Just after "On Combat" came out, I got my copy via "amazon.com", not "amazon.ca".  

Scants


----------



## DirtyDog

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/On-Killing-Dave-Grossman/9780316330114-item.html?ref=Books%3a+Search+Top+Sellers





			
				DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Excellent.  Thank you.  i could have sworn thta I've checked chapters.
> 
> Now to find a copy of "On Combat".


----------



## DirtyDog

Scants said:
			
		

> Just after "On Combat" came out, I got my copy via "amazon.com", not "amazon.ca".
> 
> Scants



Any complications ordering from the US site?


----------



## Roy Harding

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Any complications ordering from the US site?



http://www.killology.com/on_combat.htm

Just higher shipping and customs fees.  In fact, depending upon shipping and customs fees, it MAY be cheaper ordering from the States - don't get me started on having a dollar "on par" with the US, and yet book (and other) prices are substantially HIGHER in Canadian $.


Roy


----------



## Scants

I didn't have any problems ordering from the States.   I just checked amazon.com and the have it on for $18.30.  With the dollar near par, as DirtyDog pointed out, it's an even sweeter deal. Besides, there's only 1 way to find out if there's going to be a problem ordering it and that's to order it.

Scants


----------



## DirtyDog

Well, I managed to get _On Combat _ through amazon.ca.  They had 1 new copy in stock.  Combined the order with _Storm of Steel _ which I've been meaning to get to for awhile as well. 8)


----------



## Redeye

Amazon.ca was offering On Killing and On Combat as a "package" - almost enough to get free shipping too.  Amazon.ca's prices are pretty fair exchange wise when you factor in the 2.5% minimum a credit card will charge you for a USD order, plus the shipping charge from the US.  A $39 order from amazon.ca ships free.

I spend about $100 a month minimum on books to build my library, parity and amazon are lifesavers.


----------



## TN2IC

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Well, I managed to get _On Combat _ through amazon.ca.  They had 1 new copy in stock.



Because I have the other new copy.   I had no problems with amazon.ca


----------



## DirtyDog

Just an FYI - Signed copies of _On Combat _ and _On Killing _ can both be purchased here:

http://www.lwcbooks.com/

I found the link searching eBay after Wes said he got a signed copy off eBay.


----------



## TN2IC

I have got into about half in the book now. 

All I can say is "wow".

It really opens your eyes a lot.
Can't wait to finish the book off soon.

Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## kayakguyt72

Sgt  Schultz said:
			
		

> I have got into about half in the book now.
> 
> All I can say is "wow".
> 
> It really opens your eyes a lot.
> Can't wait to finish the book off soon.
> 
> Regards,
> TN2IC



If you think the books are good, you should here him Col Grossman speak.  I had the opportunity to sit through a PD session with him on the psychology of combat and I was completely engrossed in everything he had to say.  I had read 'On Killing' years before and couldn't put the book down.  I have yet to read 'On Combat' but he quoted it frequently during his session.  It's on the top of my to read list.


----------



## TN2IC

I finally had the chance to sit down and read this book fully twice. And all I can say is wow.. It really opens your eyes a lot. I won't go into details about it due to I don't want to ruin it for anyone else. But it's sure worth every penny. 

Regards,
Schultz


----------

