PDA

View Full Version : New Study: Whining and Bitching


David
September 15th 04, 05:59 PM
There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the posts
that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
order

Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
something about 'troll' warnings
Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
John Williams - 42
Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course of
his 'baitings')
John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly farts)
David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
some gun poll)
Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)

David
September 15th 04, 06:43 PM
"Paul Cassel" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
>
> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> > that took me 11 days full time.
>
> I guess prison's getting a bit boring.

No Paul, it's like anything else. It's what you make of it. Only boring
people get bored.

Paul Cassel
September 15th 04, 06:43 PM
David wrote:

> I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> that took me 11 days full time.

I guess prison's getting a bit boring.

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 07:33 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
wrote:

>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the posts
>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>order
>
>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>something about 'troll' warnings
>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>John Williams - 42
>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course of
>his 'baitings')
>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly farts)
>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>some gun poll)
>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)

It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
important to me.

Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
of the membership.

Thank you David!

David
September 15th 04, 07:47 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
posts
> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
> >order
> >
> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
> >something about 'troll' warnings
> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >John Williams - 42
> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
of
> >his 'baitings')
> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
farts)
> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
> >some gun poll)
> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>
> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> important to me.
>
> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> of the membership.
>
> Thank you David!
>
>
Thanks John. Nice to be appreciated. It wass hard work . . . . but someone
had to do it!

Keith Hobman
September 15th 04, 08:27 PM
In article >, "David"
> wrote:

> There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
> and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the posts
> that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
> order
>
> Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
> something about 'troll' warnings
> Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
> himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> John Williams - 42
> Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course of
> his 'baitings')
> John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly farts)
> David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
> John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
> some gun poll)
> Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)

I'll go for three here and say:

Dude. You have too much time on your hands!

--
My advice and opinions reflect my personality and goals.
I have no desire to cover my ass and all the bases with
disclaimers about who this is good for and who it is not
good for. So take everything I say with a grain of salt.

Lyle McDonald
September 15th 04, 08:35 PM
Keith Hobman wrote:
> In article >, "David"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the posts
>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>>order
>>
>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>>something about 'troll' warnings
>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>John Williams - 42
>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course of
>>his 'baitings')
>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly farts)
>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>>some gun poll)
>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>
>
> I'll go for three here and say:
>
> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!

Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if that.

then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
posting history.

Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
and well....

Lyle

Lee Michaels
September 15th 04, 08:40 PM
>Crybaby "David" whined and bitched
>
> > There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> > and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> > that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
posts
> > that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> > selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> > order
> >
> > Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
> > something about 'troll' warnings
> > Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
> > himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> > John Williams - 42
> > Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
of
> > his 'baitings')
> > John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
farts)
> > David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> > Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> > John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
> > some gun poll)
> > Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)

Talk about a total retard.

What you are talking about is me responding to you and Hudson (and a few
others). If there were that many responses, it was to something that the
tandem troll team said. And in almost all cases, it involved some kind of
whining and bitching.

See David Dunce, it works like this. If you get called on whining and
bitching (or trolling), it is BECAUSE that is what you (and Hudson) are
doing.

If anything, your little exercise is deranged statistics prove that you are
****ing people off. And we can be certain that what you are ****ing them off
about has absolutely nothing to do with training and nutrition.

You spent 11 days proving that people hate your guts??

Feel better now?

Retard.

Lee Michaels
September 15th 04, 08:45 PM
"Lyle McDonald" wrote

> Keith Hobman wrote:
> > In article >, "David"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> >>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> >>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
posts
> >>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> >>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> >>order
> >>
> >>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
> >>something about 'troll' warnings
> >>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
> >>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >>John Williams - 42
> >>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
of
> >>his 'baitings')
> >>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
farts)
> >>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> >>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
> >>some gun poll)
> >>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >
> >
> > I'll go for three here and say:
> >
> > Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>
> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
> posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
> an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if that.
>
> then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> posting history.
>
> Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> and well....
>

Well Lyle, that may be a good idea.

But David will never get around to it.

Cuz he is so busy doing "Google Studies".

BWHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAAHAA

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 09:24 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Keith Hobman wrote:
>> In article >, "David"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the posts
>>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>>>order
>>>
>>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>>>something about 'troll' warnings
>>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>>John Williams - 42
>>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course of
>>>his 'baitings')
>>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly farts)
>>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>>>some gun poll)
>>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>
>>
>> I'll go for three here and say:
>>
>> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>
>Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
>posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
>an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if that.
>
>then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>posting history.
>
>Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>and well....

But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and utter
****ing idiot you are.

It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
figures out of the air.

I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
both hook line and sinker!!

Well done David - nice one!!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 09:27 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:40:21 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>>Crybaby "David" whined and bitched
>>
>> > There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>"whining
>> > and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>> > that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>posts
>> > that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>> > selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>numerical
>> > order
>> >
>> > Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>> > something about 'troll' warnings
>> > Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>> > himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> > John Williams - 42
>> > Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
>of
>> > his 'baitings')
>> > John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>farts)
>> > David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> > Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>means)
>> > John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>> > some gun poll)
>> > Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>
>Talk about a total retard.
>
>What you are talking about is me responding to you and Hudson (and a few
>others). If there were that many responses, it was to something that the
>tandem troll team said. And in almost all cases, it involved some kind of
>whining and bitching.
>
>See David Dunce, it works like this. If you get called on whining and
>bitching (or trolling), it is BECAUSE that is what you (and Hudson) are
>doing.
>
>If anything, your little exercise is deranged statistics prove that you are
>****ing people off. And we can be certain that what you are ****ing them off
>about has absolutely nothing to do with training and nutrition.
>
>You spent 11 days proving that people hate your guts??
>
>Feel better now?
>
>Retard.

Tsk tsk Dopey, oh my!

This just confirms how ****ing stupid *you* really are and why we find
it necessary to draw it to your attention so frequently. You are so
far up your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete
and utter ****ing idiot you are.

It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
Mc******, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
figures out of the air.

I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Michaels, and your master
****** McD. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you both
hook line and sinker!!

Well done David - nice one!!

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

David
September 15th 04, 09:29 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
posts
> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
> >order
> >
> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
> >something about 'troll' warnings
> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >John Williams - 42
> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
of
> >his 'baitings')
> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
farts)
> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
> >some gun poll)
> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>
> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> important to me.
>
> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> of the membership.
>
> Thank you David!
>
John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" - ths
group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith as
you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and Lee -
that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated

David
September 15th 04, 09:34 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:40:21 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
> >>Crybaby "David" whined and bitched
> >>
> >> > There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >"whining
> >> > and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >> > that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> >posts
> >> > that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
I
> >> > selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >numerical
> >> > order
> >> >
> >> > Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> >> > something about 'troll' warnings
> >> > Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> >> > himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> > John Williams - 42
> >> > Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> >of
> >> > his 'baitings')
> >> > John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> >farts)
> >> > David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> > Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >means)
> >> > John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> >> > some gun poll)
> >> > Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >
> >Talk about a total retard.
> >
> >What you are talking about is me responding to you and Hudson (and a few
> >others). If there were that many responses, it was to something that the
> >tandem troll team said. And in almost all cases, it involved some kind of
> >whining and bitching.
> >
> >See David Dunce, it works like this. If you get called on whining and
> >bitching (or trolling), it is BECAUSE that is what you (and Hudson) are
> >doing.
> >
> >If anything, your little exercise is deranged statistics prove that you
are
> >****ing people off. And we can be certain that what you are ****ing them
off
> >about has absolutely nothing to do with training and nutrition.
> >
> >You spent 11 days proving that people hate your guts??
> >
> >Feel better now?
> >
> >Retard.
>
> Tsk tsk Dopey, oh my!
>
> This just confirms how ****ing stupid *you* really are and why we find
> it necessary to draw it to your attention so frequently. You are so
> far up your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete
> and utter ****ing idiot you are.
>
> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
> Mc******, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> figures out of the air.
>
> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Michaels, and your master
> ****** McD. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you both
> hook line and sinker!!
>
> Well done David - nice one!!
>
> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..

Ha Ha!!! (high fives!!) - Thanks John, like I waste even even 2 minutes
going back on googles to look at Lee's posts!!

Keith Hobman
September 15th 04, 09:35 PM
In article >, "David"
> wrote:

> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
> > >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> > >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
> > >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
> posts
> > >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> > >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
> > >order
> > >
> > >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
> > >something about 'troll' warnings
> > >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
> > >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> > >John Williams - 42
> > >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
> of
> > >his 'baitings')
> > >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> farts)
> > >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> > >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
> > >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
> > >some gun poll)
> > >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >
> > It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> > important to me.
> >
> > Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> > of the membership.
> >
> > Thank you David!
> >
> John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" - ths
> group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith as
> you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and Lee -
> that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated

Dayum. Caught.

--
My advice and opinions reflect my personality and goals.
I have no desire to cover my ass and all the bases with
disclaimers about who this is good for and who it is not
good for. So take everything I say with a grain of salt.

David
September 15th 04, 09:36 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> In article >, "David"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
posts
> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> >>>order
> >>>
> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >>>John Williams - 42
> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
of
> >>>his 'baitings')
> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
farts)
> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> >>>some gun poll)
> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >>
> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >
> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
that.
> >
> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> >posting history.
> >
> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> >and well....
>
> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and utter
> ****ing idiot you are.
>
> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> figures out of the air.
>
> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
> both hook line and sinker!!
>
> Well done David - nice one!!
>
> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
>
Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we will
ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 09:38 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:29:37 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>posts
>> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>> >order
>> >
>> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>> >something about 'troll' warnings
>> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >John Williams - 42
>> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
>of
>> >his 'baitings')
>> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>farts)
>> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>> >some gun poll)
>> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>
>> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
>> important to me.
>>
>> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
>> of the membership.
>>
>> Thank you David!
>>
> John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" - ths
>group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
>believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith as
>you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and Lee -
>that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
>

I think the point has been made emphatically this time David and no
further proof is required. They have, as usual, in their haste to be
spiteful, made absolute pricks of themselves, and they are the
laughing stock of the group.

Game, set and match old chum!! ;o)

David
September 15th 04, 09:40 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "David"
> > wrote:
>
> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> > > >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> > > >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> > > >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> > posts
> > > >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
I
> > > >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> > > >order
> > > >
> > > >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> > > >something about 'troll' warnings
> > > >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> > > >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> > > >John Williams - 42
> > > >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> > of
> > > >his 'baitings')
> > > >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> > farts)
> > > >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> > > >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> > > >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> > > >some gun poll)
> > > >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> > >
> > > It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> > > important to me.
> > >
> > > Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> > > of the membership.
> > >
> > > Thank you David!
> > >
> > John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" -
ths
> > group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> > believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith
as
> > you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
Lee -
> > that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
>
> Dayum. Caught.

LOL! (Keith, I've been jousting with these socially inept morons for months
now so they should know when I am taking the **** out of them by now!)

David
September 15th 04, 09:40 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:29:37 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> >> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
> >posts
> >> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
I
> >> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> >> >order
> >> >
> >> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> >> >something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> >> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >John Williams - 42
> >> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> >of
> >> >his 'baitings')
> >> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> >farts)
> >> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> >> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> >> >some gun poll)
> >> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >>
> >> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> >> important to me.
> >>
> >> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> >> of the membership.
> >>
> >> Thank you David!
> >>
> > John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" - ths
> >group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> >believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith
as
> >you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
Lee -
> >that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
> >
>
> I think the point has been made emphatically this time David and no
> further proof is required. They have, as usual, in their haste to be
> spiteful, made absolute pricks of themselves, and they are the
> laughing stock of the group.
>
> Game, set and match old chum!! ;o)\\

Bingo!!

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 09:47 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Keith Hobman wrote:
>> >> In article >, "David"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>"whining
>> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>study
>> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>posts
>> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>numerical
>> >>>order
>> >>>
>> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>were
>> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
>> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>training
>> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >>>John Williams - 42
>> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
>of
>> >>>his 'baitings')
>> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>farts)
>> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>means)
>> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>about
>> >>>some gun poll)
>> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll go for three here and say:
>> >>
>> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>> >
>> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
>> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
>> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
>that.
>> >
>> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>> >posting history.
>> >
>> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>> >and well....
>>
>> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
>> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
>> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and utter
>> ****ing idiot you are.
>>
>> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
>> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
>> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
>> figures out of the air.
>>
>> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
>> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
>> both hook line and sinker!!
>>
>> Well done David - nice one!!
>>
>> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
>>
>Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we will
>ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!

Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
"killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.

I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave well
alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
impressing each other.

It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years of
age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!

Er........ right!! ;o)

David
September 15th 04, 09:59 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> >> In article >, "David"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >"whining
> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> >study
> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> >posts
> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
bitching". I
> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >numerical
> >> >>>order
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
> >were
> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >training
> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >>>John Williams - 42
> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> >of
> >> >>>his 'baitings')
> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> >farts)
> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >means)
> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
> >about
> >> >>>some gun poll)
> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >> >
> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
overall
> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
made
> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
> >that.
> >> >
> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> >> >posting history.
> >> >
> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> >> >and well....
> >>
> >> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
> >> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
> >> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and utter
> >> ****ing idiot you are.
> >>
> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
> >> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> >> figures out of the air.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
> >> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
> >> both hook line and sinker!!
> >>
> >> Well done David - nice one!!
> >>
> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
> >>
> >Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we will
> >ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!
>
> Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
> "killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.
>
> I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave well
> alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
> impressing each other.
>
> It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
> days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
> adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years of
> age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!
>
> Er........ right!! ;o)
>
He probably peaked at 13.
This "killfile" thing is laughable. It is ignored when they think they can
score a point. We both know they read *all* the posts. As you once said when
you have a big ego you don't want to miss anytiing!

aj
September 15th 04, 10:48 PM
On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
>
> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
> posts
>> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>> >order
>> >
>> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>> >something about 'troll' warnings
>> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >John Williams - 42
>> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
> of
>> >his 'baitings')
>> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> farts)
>> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>> >some gun poll)
>> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>
>> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
>> important to me.
>>
>> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
>> of the membership.
>>
>> Thank you David!
>>
> John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" - ths
> group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith as
> you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and Lee -
> that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated

Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
study. OCD knows no bounds.

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

David
September 15th 04, 10:52 PM
"aj" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
> >
> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> >> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
> > posts
> >> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
I
> >> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> >> >order
> >> >
> >> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> >> >something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> >> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >John Williams - 42
> >> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> > of
> >> >his 'baitings')
> >> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> > farts)
> >> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> >> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> >> >some gun poll)
> >> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >>
> >> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> >> important to me.
> >>
> >> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> >> of the membership.
> >>
> >> Thank you David!
> >>
> > John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" -
ths
> > group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> > believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith
as
> > you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
Lee -
> > that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
>
> Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
> study. OCD knows no bounds.

OCD ?

aj
September 15th 04, 11:23 PM
On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
>
> "aj" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
>> >
>> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> "whining
>> >> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> study
>> >> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>> > posts
>> >> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
> I
>> >> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> numerical
>> >> >order
>> >> >
>> >> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
> were
>> >> >something about 'troll' warnings
>> >> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> training
>> >> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >> >John Williams - 42
>> >> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
> course
>> > of
>> >> >his 'baitings')
>> >> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>> > farts)
>> >> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> means)
>> >> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
> about
>> >> >some gun poll)
>> >> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >>
>> >> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
>> >> important to me.
>> >>
>> >> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
>> >> of the membership.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you David!
>> >>
>> > John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" -
> ths
>> > group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
>> > believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith
> as
>> > you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
> Lee -
>> > that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
>>
>> Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
>> study. OCD knows no bounds.
>
> OCD ?
bui !
sms :
epo .
sur
sld
ise
vir
ev
e

--
-aj
Some see it as a gift.

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 11:34 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:48:29 -0000, aj > wrote:

>On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
>>
>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>>> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>>> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>> posts
>>> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>>> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>>> >order
>>> >
>>> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>>> >something about 'troll' warnings
>>> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>>> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>> >John Williams - 42
>>> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
>> of
>>> >his 'baitings')
>>> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>> farts)
>>> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>>> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>>> >some gun poll)
>>> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>>
>>> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
>>> important to me.
>>>
>>> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
>>> of the membership.
>>>
>>> Thank you David!
>>>
>> John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" - ths
>> group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
>> believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith as
>> you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and Lee -
>> that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
>
>Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
>study. OCD knows no bounds.

There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
can only be a part of it!!

John HUDSON
September 15th 04, 11:38 PM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:52:37 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"aj" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
>> >
>> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>"whining
>> >> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>study
>> >> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>> > posts
>> >> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
>I
>> >> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>numerical
>> >> >order
>> >> >
>> >> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>were
>> >> >something about 'troll' warnings
>> >> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>training
>> >> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >> >John Williams - 42
>> >> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>course
>> > of
>> >> >his 'baitings')
>> >> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>> > farts)
>> >> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>means)
>> >> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>about
>> >> >some gun poll)
>> >> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >>
>> >> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
>> >> important to me.
>> >>
>> >> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
>> >> of the membership.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you David!
>> >>
>> > John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" -
>ths
>> > group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
>> > believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith
>as
>> > you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
>Lee -
>> > that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
>>
>> Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
>> study. OCD knows no bounds.
>
>OCD ?
>

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

http://www.ocdonline.com/defineocd.htm

David
September 15th 04, 11:54 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:48:29 -0000, aj > wrote:
>
> >On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
> >>
> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> >>> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >>> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >>> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> >> posts
> >>> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
I
> >>> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> >>> >order
> >>> >
> >>> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> >>> >something about 'troll' warnings
> >>> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> >>> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >>> >John Williams - 42
> >>> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> >> of
> >>> >his 'baitings')
> >>> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> >> farts)
> >>> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >>> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> >>> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> >>> >some gun poll)
> >>> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >>>
> >>> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> >>> important to me.
> >>>
> >>> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the rest
> >>> of the membership.
> >>>
> >>> Thank you David!
> >>>
> >> John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" -
ths
> >> group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> >> believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me Keith
as
> >> you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
Lee -
> >> that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably understated
> >
> >Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
> >study. OCD knows no bounds.
>
> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
> can only be a part of it!!

wth is OCD??
>

David
September 16th 04, 12:35 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:52:37 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"aj" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2004-09-15, David > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:59:17 +1000, "David" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >"whining
> >> >> >and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >> >I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> >study
> >> >> >that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> >> > posts
> >> >> >that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
bitching".
> >I
> >> >> >selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >numerical
> >> >> >order
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
> >were
> >> >> >something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >> >Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >training
> >> >> >himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >> >John Williams - 42
> >> >> >Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
> >course
> >> > of
> >> >> >his 'baitings')
> >> >> >John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
smelly
> >> > farts)
> >> >> >David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >> >Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >means)
> >> >> >John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
> >about
> >> >> >some gun poll)
> >> >> >Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >>
> >> >> It is this level of dedication and scholarship which makes MFW so
> >> >> important to me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your findings are invaluable and will explain a great deal to the
rest
> >> >> of the membership.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you David!
> >> >>
> >> > John, I just saw the responses from the key people in this "study" -
> >ths
> >> > group is so devoid of humour it is stunning. That anyone could really
> >> > believe that "study" was real is mind blowing. (please forgive me
Keith
> >as
> >> > you are the exception here!) It proves one thing to me about Lyle and
> >Lee -
> >> > that all we were saying about their 'thickness' is probably
understated
> >>
> >> Its because they could actually imagine doing something like your
> >> study. OCD knows no bounds.
> >
> >OCD ?
> >
>
> Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
>
> http://www.ocdonline.com/defineocd.htm

Got it!

Lordy
September 16th 04, 12:38 AM
John HUDSON > wrote in
:

> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
> can only be a part of it!!
>

John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !

- mfw is a fairly high volume group.
- People participate for their own pleasure

As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
descending order)

1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or

2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
answered otherwise

3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
know would be addresed by someone else anyhow

Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
months)

On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
to get on with their own lives!

I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
"apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out. Dont
worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
(even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!

That mfw website thing was a no-no!

Thanks for helping to get me an answer to my Q (on pause DL) but I
reckon ( at least hope) the initial lack of response was due to my above
1,2,3 and relevant people just not seeing my post rather than
deliberately ignoring me, (if the latter then thats life!!!) I've
generally had very reasonable and informative responses from the
""regulars"" if its pitched right. I'm guessing they have to manage
their time as much as I do.

Note dow I made the bodyweight bench reps thread more interesting :) I'm
good at that!

If you wish to stomp on my head sometime I'm at Croydon & Sutton Rugger
and cant even make the 3rd team at the moment :)

--
Lordy

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 01:19 AM
Lyle McDonald wrote:
> Keith Hobman wrote:
>> In article >, "David"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>>> "whining and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>> I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>>> study that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
>>> count the posts that could be considered in the loosest sense
>>> "whining and bitching". I selected 9 posters enirely at randon.
>>> These were my findings in numerical order
>>>
>>> Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>>> were something about 'troll' warnings
>>> Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>>> training himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>> John Williams - 42
>>> Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>>> course of his 'baitings')
>>> John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
>>> smelly farts) David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>> Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>>> means) John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of
>>> posts about some gun poll)
>>> Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>
>>
>> I'll go for three here and say:
>>
>> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>
> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of
> 1% of them if that.
>
> then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> posting history.
>
> Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> and well....
>
> Lyle

You whining about not being appreciated Llye? Try taking some Midol.
--
-Larry

David
September 16th 04, 01:22 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> Lyle McDonald wrote:
> > Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> In article >, "David"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >>> "whining and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >>> I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> >>> study that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
> >>> count the posts that could be considered in the loosest sense
> >>> "whining and bitching". I selected 9 posters enirely at randon.
> >>> These were my findings in numerical order
> >>>
> >>> Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
> >>> were something about 'troll' warnings
> >>> Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >>> training himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >>> John Williams - 42
> >>> Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
> >>> course of his 'baitings')
> >>> John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
> >>> smelly farts) David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >>> Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >>> means) John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of
> >>> posts about some gun poll)
> >>> Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >>
> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >
> > Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> > posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> > overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
> > know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of
> > 1% of them if that.
> >
> > then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> > whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> > posting history.
> >
> > Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> > and well....
> >
> > Lyle
>
> You whining about not being appreciated Llye? Try taking some Midol.
> --
> -Larry
>
Lyle never whines - he just registers his displeasure very very often

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 01:42 AM
David wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Lyle McDonald wrote:
>>> Keith Hobman wrote:
>>>> In article >, "David"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>>>>> "whining and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>>>> I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>>>>> study that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
>>>>> count the posts that could be considered in the loosest sense
>>>>> "whining and bitching". I selected 9 posters enirely at randon.
>>>>> These were my findings in numerical order
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185
>>>>> posts were something about 'troll' warnings
>>>>> Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>>>>> training himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>>>> John Williams - 42
>>>>> Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>>>>> course of his 'baitings')
>>>>> John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
>>>>> smelly farts) David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>>>> Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>>>>> means) John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack
>>>>> of posts about some gun poll)
>>>>> Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll go for three here and say:
>>>>
>>>> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>>>
>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
>>> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th
>>> of 1% of them if that.
>>>
>>> then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>>> whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of
>>> their posting history.
>>>
>>> Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly
>>> up and well....
>>>
>>> Lyle
>>
>> You whining about not being appreciated Llye? Try taking some Midol.
>> --
>> -Larry
>>
> Lyle never whines - he just registers his displeasure very very often

Ahh...I thought that was whining. I stand corrected.
--
-Larry

John M. Williams
September 16th 04, 02:41 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>
>Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
>posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)

You mean 1993?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
(http://tinyurl.com/658t4)

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 02:44 AM
John M. Williams wrote:
> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>
>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>
> You mean 1993?
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)

LMAO!!!
--
-Larry

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 02:51 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:43:27 +1000, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Paul Cassel" > wrote in message
...
>> David wrote:
>>
>> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>> > that took me 11 days full time.
>>
>> I guess prison's getting a bit boring.
>
>No Paul, it's like anything else. It's what you make of it. Only boring
>people get bored.
>

Boredom is the curse of the gifted.

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 02:54 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>Keith Hobman wrote:
>> In article >, "David"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about "whining
>>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive study
>>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the posts
>>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in numerical
>>>order
>>>
>>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts were
>>>something about 'troll' warnings
>>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money, training
>>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>>John Williams - 42
>>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course of
>>>his 'baitings')
>>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly farts)
>>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any means)
>>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts about
>>>some gun poll)
>>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>
>>
>> I'll go for three here and say:
>>
>> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>
>Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
>posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
>an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if that.
>
>then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>posting history.
>
>Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>and well....
>
David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
black market there.

David
September 16th 04, 03:10 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> >> In article >, "David"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >"whining
> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> >study
> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> >posts
> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
bitching". I
> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >numerical
> >> >>>order
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
> >were
> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >training
> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >>>John Williams - 42
> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> >of
> >> >>>his 'baitings')
> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> >farts)
> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >means)
> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
> >about
> >> >>>some gun poll)
> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >> >
> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
overall
> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
made
> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
> >that.
> >> >
> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> >> >posting history.
> >> >
> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> >> >and well....
> >>
> >> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
> >> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
> >> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and utter
> >> ****ing idiot you are.
> >>
> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
> >> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> >> figures out of the air.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
> >> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
> >> both hook line and sinker!!
> >>
> >> Well done David - nice one!!
> >>
> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
> >>
> >Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we will
> >ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!
>
> Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
> "killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.
>
> I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave well
> alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
> impressing each other.
>
> It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
> days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
> adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years of
> age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!
>
> Er........ right!! ;o)
>
Nothing about Mc******'s astounding lack of humour surprises me. Remember a
few months ago when I threatened to fly to Austin and find that tacky gym
where he trains his lesbians - I said I was going to "out" his lesbians and
he believed me! He said I was lower than a snake for wanting to do a thing
like that? This will be etched in my mind forever.

David
September 16th 04, 03:11 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:43:27 +1000, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"Paul Cassel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> David wrote:
> >>
> >> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >> > that took me 11 days full time.
> >>
> >> I guess prison's getting a bit boring.
> >
> >No Paul, it's like anything else. It's what you make of it. Only boring
> >people get bored.
> >
>
> Boredom is the curse of the gifted.

Actually John, I find myself bored quite oten

David
September 16th 04, 03:12 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> In article >, "David"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
"whining
> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
study
> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
posts
> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
numerical
> >>>order
> >>>
> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
were
> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
training
> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >>>John Williams - 42
> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
of
> >>>his 'baitings')
> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
farts)
> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
means)
> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
about
> >>>some gun poll)
> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >>
> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >
> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
that.
> >
> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> >posting history.
> >
> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> >and well....
> >
> David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
> obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
> black market there.

Dunno John, guns are messy - my wife will never forgive me - what about I
take an overdose of something?

Pat Styles
September 16th 04, 04:03 AM
"Lordy" > wrote in message
...
> John HUDSON > wrote in
> :
>
> > There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
> > can only be a part of it!!
> >
>
> John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
>
> - mfw is a fairly high volume group.
> - People participate for their own pleasure
>
> As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
> the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
> descending order)
>
> 1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
>
> 2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
> you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
> answered otherwise
>
> 3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
> know would be addresed by someone else anyhow

Wow, I've never spent the time to articulate it in that sort of detail, but that
sure sounds familiar. Very good analysis.

> Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
> likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
> months)
>
> On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
> everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
> to get on with their own lives!
>
> I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
> "apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
> contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
> at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
> you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out.

Recently?

> Dont
> worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
> (even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!
>
> That mfw website thing was a no-no!

Yep.

> Thanks for helping to get me an answer to my Q (on pause DL) but I
> reckon ( at least hope) the initial lack of response was due to my above
> 1,2,3 and relevant people just not seeing my post rather than
> deliberately ignoring me, (if the latter then thats life!!!) I've
> generally had very reasonable and informative responses from the
> ""regulars"" if its pitched right. I'm guessing they have to manage
> their time as much as I do.

Yep.
ps

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 04:10 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:56 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >Keith Hobman wrote:
>> >> In article >, "David"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>"whining
>> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>study
>> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count the
>posts
>> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching". I
>> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>numerical
>> >>>order
>> >>>
>> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>were
>> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
>> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>training
>> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >>>John Williams - 42
>> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the course
>of
>> >>>his 'baitings')
>> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>farts)
>> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>means)
>> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>about
>> >>>some gun poll)
>> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'll go for three here and say:
>> >>
>> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>> >
>> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
>> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've made
>> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
>that.
>> >
>> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>> >posting history.
>> >
>> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>> >and well....
>> >
>> David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
>> obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
>> black market there.
>
>Dunno John, guns are messy - my wife will never forgive me - what about I
>take an overdose of something?
>
Your wife would never forgive you no matter what.

So, would it be easier for you to kill yourself with poison or a
bullet?

David
September 16th 04, 04:29 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:56 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> >> In article >, "David"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >"whining
> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> >study
> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
the
> >posts
> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
bitching". I
> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >numerical
> >> >>>order
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
> >were
> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >training
> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >>>John Williams - 42
> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
course
> >of
> >> >>>his 'baitings')
> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
> >farts)
> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >means)
> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
> >about
> >> >>>some gun poll)
> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >> >>
> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >> >
> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
overall
> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
made
> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
> >that.
> >> >
> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
> >> >posting history.
> >> >
> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
> >> >and well....
> >> >
> >> David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
> >> obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
> >> black market there.
> >
> >Dunno John, guns are messy - my wife will never forgive me - what about I
> >take an overdose of something?
> >
> Your wife would never forgive you no matter what.
>
> So, would it be easier for you to kill yourself with poison or a
> bullet?

Being a coward, I would sooner take a hundred sleeping pills and just never
wake up

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 04:41 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:29:24 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:56 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
>> >> >> In article >, "David"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>> >"whining
>> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>> >study
>> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
>the
>> >posts
>> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
>bitching". I
>> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>> >numerical
>> >> >>>order
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>> >were
>> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
>> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>> >training
>> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >> >>>John Williams - 42
>> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>course
>> >of
>> >> >>>his 'baitings')
>> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>> >farts)
>> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>> >means)
>> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>> >about
>> >> >>>some gun poll)
>> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>> >> >
>> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>overall
>> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
>made
>> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
>> >that.
>> >> >
>> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>> >> >posting history.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>> >> >and well....
>> >> >
>> >> David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
>> >> obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
>> >> black market there.
>> >
>> >Dunno John, guns are messy - my wife will never forgive me - what about I
>> >take an overdose of something?
>> >
>> Your wife would never forgive you no matter what.
>>
>> So, would it be easier for you to kill yourself with poison or a
>> bullet?
>
>Being a coward, I would sooner take a hundred sleeping pills and just never
>wake up
>
I was wondering more if it was easier to acquire a firearm and
ammunition than it was to acquire a fatal dose of a drug that would
kill you taken in enough quantities.

David
September 16th 04, 04:41 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >
> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>
> You mean 1993?
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)

That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post! I am
surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian, and porn
expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later

David
September 16th 04, 04:43 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:29:24 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:56 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> >> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> >> >> In article >,
"David"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >> >"whining
> >> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A
massive
> >> >study
> >> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
count
> >the
> >> >posts
> >> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
> >bitching". I
> >> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >> >numerical
> >> >> >>>order
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185
posts
> >> >were
> >> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >> >training
> >> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >> >>>John Williams - 42
> >> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
> >course
> >> >of
> >> >> >>>his 'baitings')
> >> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
smelly
> >> >farts)
> >> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by
any
> >> >means)
> >> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of
posts
> >> >about
> >> >> >>>some gun poll)
> >> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> >overall
> >> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
> >made
> >> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them
if
> >> >that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of
their
> >> >> >posting history.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly
up
> >> >> >and well....
> >> >> >
> >> >> David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
> >> >> obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
> >> >> black market there.
> >> >
> >> >Dunno John, guns are messy - my wife will never forgive me - what
about I
> >> >take an overdose of something?
> >> >
> >> Your wife would never forgive you no matter what.
> >>
> >> So, would it be easier for you to kill yourself with poison or a
> >> bullet?
> >
> >Being a coward, I would sooner take a hundred sleeping pills and just
never
> >wake up
> >
> I was wondering more if it was easier to acquire a firearm and
> ammunition than it was to acquire a fatal dose of a drug that would
> kill you taken in enough quantities.

See what you mean. I would get prescription sleeping pills and just take the
bottle - one hit - curtain closes - last trip - say goodbye David

Lyle McDonald
September 16th 04, 05:09 AM
here David,

If you're really bored, I have a homework assignment for you.

I want you to research John "THE ENFORCER" William's posting history.

First I want you to compare the total number of posts he's made since
appearing on mfw to the ones that actually contained on topic (meaning
relevant to lifting or nutrition or weights) information. I will be
surprised if it reaches, much less surpasses 5%.

Then see how many of his posts were, as he calls it, 'troll hunting'.
Note how many of those were simply him continuing to feed the trolls.
As a self-proclaimed 'troll hunter', he has to keep them around by
constantly feeding them. This is clear to anybody who takes the time to
look. Ignoring the 'I'm making up for a small penis' gun banter that
goes on here, I bet this makes up the majority of his posting. That and
arguing with people even when he's clearly wrong.

When you're done with that, I want you to find out how many times he has
EVER admitted he was wrong about something. I bring this up as he
regularly accuses others (esp. me) of never admitting when they were
wrong (even though I do it all the time when i am wrong). If you can
find 10 cases in his posting history (even when it was clear that he was
wrong) where he admitted it, I will be surprised. I can think of one
offhand, in a gun debate with T Blaze Boren.

Sub-homework: See how many times he used pathetic ad-hominem attacks to
avoid admitting he was wrong. Or jsut resorted to name calling. To get
you started, find the thread where, in order to avoid admitting he was
wrong, he accused me of having a manic espisode. That was a good one.

Sub-sub homework, see how many times he used a clear
distraction/outright falsehood to avoid admitting the truth. Starting
point: find the thread where I accused him of being fat and, to prove
that he wasn't, he posted a video of himself chinning. From the back.
As if video from the back proves **** about his big fat visceral fat
belly. Note that anyone with the technology to post such a video could
have easily posted video from the front to prove me wrong. Yet he did not.

Finally, see how many times he tried to bluff/bully someone, had his
bluff called and punked out like the pathetic little bitch that he is.
Actually, I think I'm one of the few that he couldn't bully, he relies
on it to get his way most of the time but I won't fall for his ****.
First find the threads where he went on about the bromocriptine article
he was going to write. And never did. Maybe find out what happened to
his big occlusion experiment. Then find the thread where he tried to
blackmail me into not being mean to him by 'telling everyone my secret'.
Go find out what he did when I called his bluff. Hint: he punked out
like a pathetic little bitch.

I could probably go on but the above should keep you busy for a while.

have fun, I'm off to a wedding for the weekend.

Lyle

Proton Soup
September 16th 04, 05:39 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:41:34 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:29:24 GMT, "David" >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:12:56 GMT, "David" >
>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>>> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>> >>
>>> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
>>> >> >> In article >, "David"
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>>> >"whining
>>> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>>> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>>> >study
>>> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
>>the
>>> >posts
>>> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
>>bitching". I
>>> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>>> >numerical
>>> >> >>>order
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>>> >were
>>> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
>>> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>>> >training
>>> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>>> >> >>>John Williams - 42
>>> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>>course
>>> >of
>>> >> >>>his 'baitings')
>>> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>>> >farts)
>>> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>>> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>>> >means)
>>> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>>> >about
>>> >> >>>some gun poll)
>>> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>overall
>>> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
>>made
>>> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
>>> >that.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>>> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>>> >> >posting history.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>>> >> >and well....
>>> >> >
>>> >> David is an Aussie so he may have a great amount of difficulty
>>> >> obtaining a gun. But, I'm sure they are readily available on the
>>> >> black market there.
>>> >
>>> >Dunno John, guns are messy - my wife will never forgive me - what about I
>>> >take an overdose of something?
>>> >
>>> Your wife would never forgive you no matter what.
>>>
>>> So, would it be easier for you to kill yourself with poison or a
>>> bullet?
>>
>>Being a coward, I would sooner take a hundred sleeping pills and just never
>>wake up
>>
>I was wondering more if it was easier to acquire a firearm and
>ammunition than it was to acquire a fatal dose of a drug that would
>kill you taken in enough quantities.

Just wash down a bottle of tylenol with a bottle of vodka.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

David
September 16th 04, 05:39 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> here David,
>
> If you're really bored, I have a homework assignment for you.
>
> I want you to research John "THE ENFORCER" William's posting history.
>
> First I want you to compare the total number of posts he's made since
> appearing on mfw to the ones that actually contained on topic (meaning
> relevant to lifting or nutrition or weights) information. I will be
> surprised if it reaches, much less surpasses 5%.
>
> Then see how many of his posts were, as he calls it, 'troll hunting'.
> Note how many of those were simply him continuing to feed the trolls.
> As a self-proclaimed 'troll hunter', he has to keep them around by
> constantly feeding them. This is clear to anybody who takes the time to
> look. Ignoring the 'I'm making up for a small penis' gun banter that
> goes on here, I bet this makes up the majority of his posting. That and
> arguing with people even when he's clearly wrong.
>
> When you're done with that, I want you to find out how many times he has
> EVER admitted he was wrong about something. I bring this up as he
> regularly accuses others (esp. me) of never admitting when they were
> wrong (even though I do it all the time when i am wrong). If you can
> find 10 cases in his posting history (even when it was clear that he was
> wrong) where he admitted it, I will be surprised. I can think of one
> offhand, in a gun debate with T Blaze Boren.
>
> Sub-homework: See how many times he used pathetic ad-hominem attacks to
> avoid admitting he was wrong. Or jsut resorted to name calling. To get
> you started, find the thread where, in order to avoid admitting he was
> wrong, he accused me of having a manic espisode. That was a good one.
>
> Sub-sub homework, see how many times he used a clear
> distraction/outright falsehood to avoid admitting the truth. Starting
> point: find the thread where I accused him of being fat and, to prove
> that he wasn't, he posted a video of himself chinning. From the back.
> As if video from the back proves **** about his big fat visceral fat
> belly. Note that anyone with the technology to post such a video could
> have easily posted video from the front to prove me wrong. Yet he did
not.
>
> Finally, see how many times he tried to bluff/bully someone, had his
> bluff called and punked out like the pathetic little bitch that he is.
> Actually, I think I'm one of the few that he couldn't bully, he relies
> on it to get his way most of the time but I won't fall for his ****.
> First find the threads where he went on about the bromocriptine article
> he was going to write. And never did. Maybe find out what happened to
> his big occlusion experiment. Then find the thread where he tried to
> blackmail me into not being mean to him by 'telling everyone my secret'.
> Go find out what he did when I called his bluff. Hint: he punked out
> like a pathetic little bitch.
>
> I could probably go on but the above should keep you busy for a while.
>
> have fun, I'm off to a wedding for the weekend.
>
> Lyle

Lyle, that is one hell of a lot of work. I mean, ok I'm bored but I'm not
*that* bored!
In any case, you've pretty well done the assignment for me. Enjoy the
wedding - are the lesbians finally getting hitched up?

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 05:46 AM
David wrote:
> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>>
>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>>
>> You mean 1993?
>>
>>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
>> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)
>
> That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post!
> I am surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian,
> and porn expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later

What's amazing is he walks in, first post, and announces himself as "The
Instructor". Hurray! Everybody is saved! "Llye" is here to save the day!

What an arrogant dick...
--
-Larry

David
September 16th 04, 06:10 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> >>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
> >>
> >> You mean 1993?
> >>
> >>
> >
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
> >> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)
> >
> > That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post!
> > I am surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian,
> > and porn expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later
>
> What's amazing is he walks in, first post, and announces himself as "The
> Instructor". Hurray! Everybody is saved! "Llye" is here to save the
day!
>
> What an arrogant dick...
> --
> -Larry
>
Yes, he was very arrogant then. Then got progressively worse.

John M. Williams
September 16th 04, 06:14 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote:

>here David,
>
>If you're really bored, I have a homework assignment for you.
>
>I want you to research John "THE ENFORCER" William's posting history.
>
>[snip]

I think Lyle needs the waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance!

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:21 AM
On 15 Sep 2004 23:38:51 GMT, Lordy > wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote in
:
>
>> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
>> can only be a part of it!!
>>
>
>John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
>
>- mfw is a fairly high volume group.
>- People participate for their own pleasure
>
>As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
>the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
>descending order)
>
>1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
>
>2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
>you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
>answered otherwise
>
>3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
>know would be addresed by someone else anyhow
>
>Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
>likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
>months)
>
>On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
>everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
>to get on with their own lives!
>
>I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
>"apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
>contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
>at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
>you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out. Dont
>worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
>(even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!

It's a pity that my input comes across that way because I've been
doing it far too long here for that to be really true. The truth is
that I enjoy what I do, and giving the erstwhile bullies the ****s is
what I do in real life also, so we are what we are!!

>
>That mfw website thing was a no-no!

I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm

No apologies there, it's just for fun. Let me have your .jpeg (in
rugby kit?) ;o)

>
>Thanks for helping to get me an answer to my Q (on pause DL) but I
>reckon ( at least hope) the initial lack of response was due to my above
>1,2,3 and relevant people just not seeing my post rather than
>deliberately ignoring me, (if the latter then thats life!!!) I've
>generally had very reasonable and informative responses from the
>""regulars"" if its pitched right. I'm guessing they have to manage
>their time as much as I do.
>
>Note dow I made the bodyweight bench reps thread more interesting :) I'm
>good at that!
>
>If you wish to stomp on my head sometime I'm at Croydon & Sutton Rugger
>and cant even make the 3rd team at the moment :)

I've played over at Warlingham a few times who are a very hospitable
crowd.

Keep plugging away Lordy, you have to improve your skills to match
your enthusiasm, but I'll bet you make it!! ;o)

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:31 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:41:20 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>
>>Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my overall
>>posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>
>You mean 1993?
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
>(http://tinyurl.com/658t4)

Which just goes to prove that he is a lying prick as well!! ;o)

Well done Counsellor!! ;o)

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:34 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:10:24 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
>> >> >> In article >, "David"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>> >"whining
>> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>> >study
>> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
>the
>> >posts
>> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
>bitching". I
>> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>> >numerical
>> >> >>>order
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>> >were
>> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
>> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>> >training
>> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >> >>>John Williams - 42
>> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>course
>> >of
>> >> >>>his 'baitings')
>> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>> >farts)
>> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>> >means)
>> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>> >about
>> >> >>>some gun poll)
>> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>> >> >
>> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>overall
>> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
>made
>> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if
>> >that.
>> >> >
>> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of their
>> >> >posting history.
>> >> >
>> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly up
>> >> >and well....
>> >>
>> >> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
>> >> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
>> >> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and utter
>> >> ****ing idiot you are.
>> >>
>> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
>> >> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
>> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
>> >> figures out of the air.
>> >>
>> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
>> >> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
>> >> both hook line and sinker!!
>> >>
>> >> Well done David - nice one!!
>> >>
>> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
>> >>
>> >Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we will
>> >ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!
>>
>> Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
>> "killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.
>>
>> I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave well
>> alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
>> impressing each other.
>>
>> It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
>> days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
>> adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years of
>> age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!
>>
>> Er........ right!! ;o)
>>
>Nothing about Mc******'s astounding lack of humour surprises me. Remember a
>few months ago when I threatened to fly to Austin and find that tacky gym
>where he trains his lesbians - I said I was going to "out" his lesbians and
>he believed me! He said I was lower than a snake for wanting to do a thing
>like that? This will be etched in my mind forever.

We all know he's a prick, the problem is getting *him* to realise this
fact!! ;o)

We do our best to keep drawing it to his attention. He must be
delighted that he is being supported by the group's resident idiot
Dopey Michaels!! ;o)

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:37 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:03:12 -0700, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"Lordy" > wrote in message
...
>> John HUDSON > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
>> > can only be a part of it!!
>> >
>>
>> John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
>>
>> - mfw is a fairly high volume group.
>> - People participate for their own pleasure
>>
>> As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
>> the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
>> descending order)
>>
>> 1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
>>
>> 2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
>> you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
>> answered otherwise
>>
>> 3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
>> know would be addresed by someone else anyhow
>
>Wow, I've never spent the time to articulate it in that sort of detail, but that
>sure sounds familiar. Very good analysis.
>
>> Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
>> likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
>> months)
>>
>> On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
>> everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
>> to get on with their own lives!
>>
>> I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
>> "apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
>> contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
>> at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
>> you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out.
>
>Recently?
>
>> Dont
>> worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
>> (even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!
>>
>> That mfw website thing was a no-no!
>
>Yep.
>
>> Thanks for helping to get me an answer to my Q (on pause DL) but I
>> reckon ( at least hope) the initial lack of response was due to my above
>> 1,2,3 and relevant people just not seeing my post rather than
>> deliberately ignoring me, (if the latter then thats life!!!) I've
>> generally had very reasonable and informative responses from the
>> ""regulars"" if its pitched right. I'm guessing they have to manage
>> their time as much as I do.
>
>Yep.
> ps

Our grateful thanks for this unusually invaluable contribution Pat!!

Now go back to sleep!! ;o)

David
September 16th 04, 07:41 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:10:24 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> >> >> In article >,
"David"
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >> >"whining
> >> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A
massive
> >> >study
> >> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
count
> >the
> >> >posts
> >> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
> >bitching". I
> >> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >> >numerical
> >> >> >>>order
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185
posts
> >> >were
> >> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >> >training
> >> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >> >>>John Williams - 42
> >> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
> >course
> >> >of
> >> >> >>>his 'baitings')
> >> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
smelly
> >> >farts)
> >> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by
any
> >> >means)
> >> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of
posts
> >> >about
> >> >> >>>some gun poll)
> >> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> >overall
> >> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
> >made
> >> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them
if
> >> >that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
> >> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of
their
> >> >> >posting history.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly
up
> >> >> >and well....
> >> >>
> >> >> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
> >> >> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
> >> >> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and
utter
> >> >> ****ing idiot you are.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing
goon
> >> >> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
> >> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> >> >> figures out of the air.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
> >> >> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught
you
> >> >> both hook line and sinker!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Well done David - nice one!!
> >> >>
> >> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
> >> >>
> >> >Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we
will
> >> >ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!
> >>
> >> Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
> >> "killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.
> >>
> >> I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave well
> >> alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
> >> impressing each other.
> >>
> >> It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
> >> days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
> >> adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years of
> >> age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!
> >>
> >> Er........ right!! ;o)
> >>
> >Nothing about Mc******'s astounding lack of humour surprises me.
Remember a
> >few months ago when I threatened to fly to Austin and find that tacky gym
> >where he trains his lesbians - I said I was going to "out" his lesbians
and
> >he believed me! He said I was lower than a snake for wanting to do a
thing
> >like that? This will be etched in my mind forever.
>
> We all know he's a prick, the problem is getting *him* to realise this
> fact!! ;o)
>
> We do our best to keep drawing it to his attention. He must be
> delighted that he is being supported by the group's resident idiot
> Dopey Michaels!! ;o)

he sure got nailed pretty good today - doubt whether he has the balls to
come back - if he has any balls at all - I think we may have driven the
dopey **** to **** Heaven

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:46 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:09:37 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>here David,
>
>If you're really bored, I have a homework assignment for you.
>
>I want you to research John "THE ENFORCER" William's posting history.
>
>First I want you to compare the total number of posts he's made since
>appearing on mfw to the ones that actually contained on topic (meaning
>relevant to lifting or nutrition or weights) information. I will be
>surprised if it reaches, much less surpasses 5%.
>
>Then see how many of his posts were, as he calls it, 'troll hunting'.
>Note how many of those were simply him continuing to feed the trolls.
>As a self-proclaimed 'troll hunter', he has to keep them around by
>constantly feeding them. This is clear to anybody who takes the time to
>look. Ignoring the 'I'm making up for a small penis' gun banter that
>goes on here, I bet this makes up the majority of his posting. That and
>arguing with people even when he's clearly wrong.
>
>When you're done with that, I want you to find out how many times he has
>EVER admitted he was wrong about something. I bring this up as he
>regularly accuses others (esp. me) of never admitting when they were
>wrong (even though I do it all the time when i am wrong). If you can
>find 10 cases in his posting history (even when it was clear that he was
>wrong) where he admitted it, I will be surprised. I can think of one
>offhand, in a gun debate with T Blaze Boren.
>
>Sub-homework: See how many times he used pathetic ad-hominem attacks to
>avoid admitting he was wrong. Or jsut resorted to name calling. To get
>you started, find the thread where, in order to avoid admitting he was
>wrong, he accused me of having a manic espisode. That was a good one.
>
>Sub-sub homework, see how many times he used a clear
>distraction/outright falsehood to avoid admitting the truth. Starting
>point: find the thread where I accused him of being fat and, to prove
>that he wasn't, he posted a video of himself chinning. From the back.
>As if video from the back proves **** about his big fat visceral fat
>belly. Note that anyone with the technology to post such a video could
>have easily posted video from the front to prove me wrong. Yet he did not.
>
>Finally, see how many times he tried to bluff/bully someone, had his
>bluff called and punked out like the pathetic little bitch that he is.
>Actually, I think I'm one of the few that he couldn't bully, he relies
>on it to get his way most of the time but I won't fall for his ****.
>First find the threads where he went on about the bromocriptine article
>he was going to write. And never did. Maybe find out what happened to
>his big occlusion experiment. Then find the thread where he tried to
>blackmail me into not being mean to him by 'telling everyone my secret'.
> Go find out what he did when I called his bluff. Hint: he punked out
>like a pathetic little bitch.
>
>I could probably go on but the above should keep you busy for a while.
>
>have fun, I'm off to a wedding for the weekend.

Now this is what is what *real* whining is all about, and Mc****** has
the audacity to accuse others of this gross MFW sin.

[For those who aren't aware, McDonald and Williams fell out in real
life due to them both having an affaire with Mz Volk, who 'elzinated'
them in turn, choosing Mc****** over Williams eventually, and then
finding Mc****** not particularly nice.]

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:47 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:46:15 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote:

>David wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>>>
>>> You mean 1993?
>>>
>>>
>>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
>>> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)
>>
>> That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post!
>> I am surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian,
>> and porn expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later
>
>What's amazing is he walks in, first post, and announces himself as "The
>Instructor". Hurray! Everybody is saved! "Llye" is here to save the day!
>
>What an arrogant dick...

Now you see why he is such an obvious target. If he behaved like it in
real life he'd get his head kicked in!! ;o)

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 07:50 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:41:41 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:10:24 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
>> >> >> >> In article >,
>"David"
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>> >> >"whining
>> >> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A
>massive
>> >> >study
>> >> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
>count
>> >the
>> >> >posts
>> >> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
>> >bitching". I
>> >> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>> >> >numerical
>> >> >> >>>order
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185
>posts
>> >> >were
>> >> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
>> >> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>> >> >training
>> >> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >> >> >>>John Williams - 42
>> >> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>> >course
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >>>his 'baitings')
>> >> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
>smelly
>> >> >farts)
>> >> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by
>any
>> >> >means)
>> >> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of
>posts
>> >> >about
>> >> >> >>>some gun poll)
>> >> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> >> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>> >overall
>> >> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know I've
>> >made
>> >> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of them
>if
>> >> >that.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history where
>> >> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of
>their
>> >> >> >posting history.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing slightly
>up
>> >> >> >and well....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find it
>> >> >> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far up
>> >> >> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and
>utter
>> >> >> ****ing idiot you are.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing
>goon
>> >> >> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
>> >> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
>> >> >> figures out of the air.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your lap-dog
>> >> >> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught
>you
>> >> >> both hook line and sinker!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well done David - nice one!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
>> >> >>
>> >> >Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt we
>will
>> >> >ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!
>> >>
>> >> Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
>> >> "killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.
>> >>
>> >> I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave well
>> >> alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
>> >> impressing each other.
>> >>
>> >> It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
>> >> days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
>> >> adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years of
>> >> age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!
>> >>
>> >> Er........ right!! ;o)
>> >>
>> >Nothing about Mc******'s astounding lack of humour surprises me.
>Remember a
>> >few months ago when I threatened to fly to Austin and find that tacky gym
>> >where he trains his lesbians - I said I was going to "out" his lesbians
>and
>> >he believed me! He said I was lower than a snake for wanting to do a
>thing
>> >like that? This will be etched in my mind forever.
>>
>> We all know he's a prick, the problem is getting *him* to realise this
>> fact!! ;o)
>>
>> We do our best to keep drawing it to his attention. He must be
>> delighted that he is being supported by the group's resident idiot
>> Dopey Michaels!! ;o)
>
>he sure got nailed pretty good today - doubt whether he has the balls to
>come back - if he has any balls at all - I think we may have driven the
>dopey **** to **** Heaven

Amen to that!! ;o)

David
September 16th 04, 09:43 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 06:41:41 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:10:24 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:36:48 GMT, "David" >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 13:35:53 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Keith Hobman wrote:
> >> >> >> >> In article >,
> >"David"
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>There have been a number of charges thrown around recently
about
> >> >> >"whining
> >> >> >> >>>and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >> >> >>>I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A
> >massive
> >> >> >study
> >> >> >> >>>that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually
> >count
> >> >the
> >> >> >posts
> >> >> >> >>>that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
> >> >bitching". I
> >> >> >> >>>selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings
in
> >> >> >numerical
> >> >> >> >>>order
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185
> >posts
> >> >> >were
> >> >> >> >>>something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >> >> >>>Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any
money,
> >> >> >training
> >> >> >> >>>himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >> >> >>>John Williams - 42
> >> >> >> >>>Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in
the
> >> >course
> >> >> >of
> >> >> >> >>>his 'baitings')
> >> >> >> >>>John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
> >smelly
> >> >> >farts)
> >> >> >> >>>David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >> >> >>>Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by
> >any
> >> >> >means)
> >> >> >> >>>John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of
> >posts
> >> >> >about
> >> >> >> >>>some gun poll)
> >> >> >> >>>Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'll go for three here and say:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Dude. You have too much time on your hands!
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the
total
> >> >> >> >posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> >> >overall
> >> >> >> >posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I know
I've
> >> >made
> >> >> >> >an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of 1% of
them
> >if
> >> >> >that.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >then he can compare that to his and Hudson's posting history
where
> >> >> >> >whining/bitching and moaning makes up almost the exclusivity of
> >their
> >> >> >> >posting history.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Then he can go buy a gun, insert it in his mouth pointing
slightly
> >up
> >> >> >> >and well....
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But this just confirms how ****ing stupid you are and why we find
it
> >> >> >> necessary to draw it to your attention frequently. You are so far
up
> >> >> >> your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete and
> >utter
> >> >> >> ****ing idiot you are.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing
> >goon
> >> >> >> Michaels, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a
massive
> >> >> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> >> >> >> figures out of the air.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Mc******, and your
lap-dog
> >> >> >> Dopey Michaels. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught
> >you
> >> >> >> both hook line and sinker!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Well done David - nice one!!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >Ha Ha - Mr ****** and Mr Angry would be so embarassed now I doubt
we
> >will
> >> >> >ever hear from them again!! They make a doorknob look smart!
> >> >>
> >> >> Well of course what they will do now is to resort to the old alleged
> >> >> "killfiles" routine, and make out they can't see what we are saying.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think it's time they realised that they can't compete and leave
well
> >> >> alone. They are much better just playing amongst themselves and
> >> >> impressing each other.
> >> >>
> >> >> It was illuminating to hear Mc****** claiming seniority back to the
> >> >> days when computers were steam driven. He's been churning out his
> >> >> adolescent bull**** for 21 years, that means he was about 13 years
of
> >> >> age when he first started dispensing his 'wisdom'!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Er........ right!! ;o)
> >> >>
> >> >Nothing about Mc******'s astounding lack of humour surprises me.
> >Remember a
> >> >few months ago when I threatened to fly to Austin and find that tacky
gym
> >> >where he trains his lesbians - I said I was going to "out" his
lesbians
> >and
> >> >he believed me! He said I was lower than a snake for wanting to do a
> >thing
> >> >like that? This will be etched in my mind forever.
> >>
> >> We all know he's a prick, the problem is getting *him* to realise this
> >> fact!! ;o)
> >>
> >> We do our best to keep drawing it to his attention. He must be
> >> delighted that he is being supported by the group's resident idiot
> >> Dopey Michaels!! ;o)
> >
> >he sure got nailed pretty good today - doubt whether he has the balls to
> >come back - if he has any balls at all - I think we may have driven the
> >dopey **** to **** Heaven
>
> Amen to that!! ;o)
>

The ultimate irony is he who has been warning all who would listen about
"trolls" has just been trolled himself big time. .This dopey **** who runs
around shouting "Beware the troll" fell for the most basic trolling
technique known to man. Michaels is so dumb it is breathtaking. And is mate
McPrick is not far behind (just wiping up the rear you might say)

David
September 16th 04, 11:43 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:09:37 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
> >here David,
> >
> >If you're really bored, I have a homework assignment for you.
> >
> >I want you to research John "THE ENFORCER" William's posting history.
> >
> >First I want you to compare the total number of posts he's made since
> >appearing on mfw to the ones that actually contained on topic (meaning
> >relevant to lifting or nutrition or weights) information. I will be
> >surprised if it reaches, much less surpasses 5%.
> >
> >Then see how many of his posts were, as he calls it, 'troll hunting'.
> >Note how many of those were simply him continuing to feed the trolls.
> >As a self-proclaimed 'troll hunter', he has to keep them around by
> >constantly feeding them. This is clear to anybody who takes the time to
> >look. Ignoring the 'I'm making up for a small penis' gun banter that
> >goes on here, I bet this makes up the majority of his posting. That and
> >arguing with people even when he's clearly wrong.
> >
> >When you're done with that, I want you to find out how many times he has
> >EVER admitted he was wrong about something. I bring this up as he
> >regularly accuses others (esp. me) of never admitting when they were
> >wrong (even though I do it all the time when i am wrong). If you can
> >find 10 cases in his posting history (even when it was clear that he was
> >wrong) where he admitted it, I will be surprised. I can think of one
> >offhand, in a gun debate with T Blaze Boren.
> >
> >Sub-homework: See how many times he used pathetic ad-hominem attacks to
> >avoid admitting he was wrong. Or jsut resorted to name calling. To get
> >you started, find the thread where, in order to avoid admitting he was
> >wrong, he accused me of having a manic espisode. That was a good one.
> >
> >Sub-sub homework, see how many times he used a clear
> >distraction/outright falsehood to avoid admitting the truth. Starting
> >point: find the thread where I accused him of being fat and, to prove
> >that he wasn't, he posted a video of himself chinning. From the back.
> >As if video from the back proves **** about his big fat visceral fat
> >belly. Note that anyone with the technology to post such a video could
> >have easily posted video from the front to prove me wrong. Yet he did
not.
> >
> >Finally, see how many times he tried to bluff/bully someone, had his
> >bluff called and punked out like the pathetic little bitch that he is.
> >Actually, I think I'm one of the few that he couldn't bully, he relies
> >on it to get his way most of the time but I won't fall for his ****.
> >First find the threads where he went on about the bromocriptine article
> >he was going to write. And never did. Maybe find out what happened to
> >his big occlusion experiment. Then find the thread where he tried to
> >blackmail me into not being mean to him by 'telling everyone my secret'.
> > Go find out what he did when I called his bluff. Hint: he punked out
> >like a pathetic little bitch.
> >
> >I could probably go on but the above should keep you busy for a while.
> >
> >have fun, I'm off to a wedding for the weekend.
>
> Now this is what is what *real* whining is all about, and Mc****** has
> the audacity to accuse others of this gross MFW sin.
>
> [For those who aren't aware, McDonald and Williams fell out in real
> life due to them both having an affaire with Mz Volk, who 'elzinated'
> them in turn, choosing Mc****** over Williams eventually, and then
> finding Mc****** not particularly nice.]
>
Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
better of the deal
http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com/elzi1.htm

DRS
September 16th 04, 02:28 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message


[...]

> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of
> 1% of them if that.

That's a scarily good guesstimate. According to
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_uauthors=lyle%20mcdonald&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
you've made over 40,000 posts! 1% of that obviously is 400 so 185 is a tad
under 5/10 of that.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Pat Styles
September 16th 04, 03:23 PM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> have fun, I'm off to a wedding for the weekend.
>
> Lyle

Ah, so who's the lucky lady who gets to be wife #1? If you get one a month
between now and Christmas, you should have no problem keeping your bed warm this
winter.
ps

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 04:17 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 02:11:44 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:43:27 +1000, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"Paul Cassel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> David wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>study
>> >> > that took me 11 days full time.
>> >>
>> >> I guess prison's getting a bit boring.
>> >
>> >No Paul, it's like anything else. It's what you make of it. Only boring
>> >people get bored.
>> >
>>
>> Boredom is the curse of the gifted.
>
>Actually John, I find myself bored quite oten
>
Hehe.

Elzinator
September 16th 04, 09:56 PM
"David" > wrote in message >...
> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message

> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
> better of the deal

Whatthe****ever.
I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
anyway.

John HUDSON
September 16th 04, 11:31 PM
On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
wrote:

>"David" > wrote in message >...
>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>
>> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
>> better of the deal
>
>Whatthe****ever.
>I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>anyway.r

I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!

Larry Hodges
September 16th 04, 11:56 PM
DRS wrote:
> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
>> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of
>> 1% of them if that.
>
> That's a scarily good guesstimate. According to
>
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_uauthors=lyle%20mcdonald&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
> you've made over 40,000 posts! 1% of that obviously is 400 so 185 is
> a tad under 5/10 of that.

There is no way that's right. I did a search for my name just to see how
many I've posted in the short time I've been here. It says 10,700.

http://groups.google.com.au/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=author%3Alarry+author%3Ahodges&btnG=Search
--
-Larry

Lee Michaels
September 17th 04, 12:32 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> wrote:
>
> >"David" > wrote in message
>...
> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >
> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
> >> better of the deal
> >
> >Whatthe****ever.
> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> >anyway.r
>
> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>

Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty self.

He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have him
killfiled.

Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this alcoholic
megalomaniac.

And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you Hudson,
consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts. I
only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of them
or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's posts.

Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.

<sound of flushing water>

John M. Williams
September 17th 04, 01:14 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote:

>DRS wrote:
>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
>>> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th of
>>> 1% of them if that.
>>
>> That's a scarily good guesstimate. According to
>>
>http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_uauthors=lyle%20mcdonald&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
>> you've made over 40,000 posts! 1% of that obviously is 400 so 185 is
>> a tad under 5/10 of that.
>
>There is no way that's right. I did a search for my name just to see how
>many I've posted in the short time I've been here. It says 10,700.
>
>http://groups.google.com.au/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=author%3Alarry+author%3Ahodges&btnG=Search

Well, are you the ping-pong Larry Hodges and
)? That's where about 9,200 of those posts come from.

Actually, I'm amazed that "John Williams" has only 45,200 posts. My
own MFW posts comprise almost a third of that. But, then again, I've
been posting here since late '95.

Larry Hodges
September 17th 04, 01:37 AM
John M. Williams wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>
>> DRS wrote:
>>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
>>>> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th
>>>> of 1% of them if that.
>>>
>>> That's a scarily good guesstimate. According to
>>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_uauthors=lyle%20mcdonald&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
>>> you've made over 40,000 posts! 1% of that obviously is 400 so 185
>>> is a tad under 5/10 of that.
>>
>> There is no way that's right. I did a search for my name just to
>> see how many I've posted in the short time I've been here. It says
>> 10,700.
>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=author%3Alarry+author%3Ahodges&btnG=Search
>
> Well, are you the ping-pong Larry Hodges and
> )? That's where about 9,200 of those posts come from.
>
> Actually, I'm amazed that "John Williams" has only 45,200 posts. My
> own MFW posts comprise almost a third of that. But, then again, I've
> been posting here since late '95.

You sure you don't mean posting since '85? Do I hear '75?
--
-Larry

elzinator
September 17th 04, 02:18 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"David" > wrote in message
>...
>> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
>> >> better of the deal
>> >
>> >Whatthe****ever.
>> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>> >anyway.r
>>
>> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
>> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>>
>
>Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty self.
>
>He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have him
>killfiled.

Still do.

>Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
>somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
>And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this alcoholic
>megalomaniac.

And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
private business of which he knows nothing about.

>And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you Hudson,
>consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts. I
>only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of them
>or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's posts.
>
>Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>
><sound of flushing water>
>

David
September 17th 04, 03:18 AM
"Elzinator" > wrote in message
m...
> "David" > wrote in message
>...
> > "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>
> > Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
> > better of the deal
>
> Whatthe****ever.
> I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
> thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> anyway.

If you are so content to be by yourself then **** off and be by yourself!
I'll be the judge as to what is or is not by business

David
September 17th 04, 03:22 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
>
> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"David" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> > >
> > >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got
the
> > >> better of the deal
> > >
> > >Whatthe****ever.
> > >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
> > >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> > >anyway.r
> >
> > I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
> > and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
> > the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >
>
> Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty self.
>
> He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have
him
> killfiled.
>
> Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
> somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
> And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
alcoholic
> megalomaniac.
>
> And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
Hudson,
> consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts.
I
> only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of them
> or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's posts.
>
> Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>
> <sound of flushing water>
>
Lee, do you really think anyone really gives a **** as to who you do or
don't killfile? Like having to make a public declaration is so childish.

David
September 17th 04, 03:25 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"David" > wrote in message
> >...
> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got
the
> >> >> better of the deal
> >> >
> >> >Whatthe****ever.
> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> >> >anyway.r
> >>
> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >>
> >
> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
self.
> >
> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have
him
> >killfiled.
>
> Still do.
>
> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
alcoholic
> >megalomaniac.
>
> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
> private business of which he knows nothing about.
>
> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
Hudson,
> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts.
I
> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
them
> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
posts.
> >
> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
> >
> ><sound of flushing water>
> >
Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is that
all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information that
is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
don't make it public on usenet.

elzinator
September 17th 04, 03:37 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
>
>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got
>the
>> >> >> better of the deal
>> >> >
>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>> >> >anyway.r
>> >>
>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
>self.
>> >
>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have
>him
>> >killfiled.
>>
>> Still do.
>>
>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
>alcoholic
>> >megalomaniac.
>>
>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
>>
>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
>Hudson,
>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts.
>I
>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
>them
>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
>posts.
>> >
>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>> >
>> ><sound of flushing water>
>> >
>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is that
>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information that
>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
>don't make it public on usenet.

I don't.

Too bad you have become such a moron.

Toodles.

David
September 17th 04, 03:45 AM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
> >
> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"David" > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams
got
> >the
> >> >> >> better of the deal
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Whatthe****ever.
> >> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
> >> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> >> >> >anyway.r
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
> >> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly
in
> >> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
> >self.
> >> >
> >> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks
have
> >him
> >> >killfiled.
> >>
> >> Still do.
> >>
> >> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice
to
> >> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he
is?
> >> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
> >alcoholic
> >> >megalomaniac.
> >>
> >> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
> >> private business of which he knows nothing about.
> >>
> >> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
> >Hudson,
> >> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your
posts.
> >I
> >> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
> >them
> >> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
> >posts.
> >> >
> >> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
> >> >
> >> ><sound of flushing water>
> >> >
> >Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is
that
> >all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information
that
> >is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
> >don't make it public on usenet.
>
> I don't.
>
> Too bad you have become such a moron.
>
> Toodles.
>
OK, I admit I know ****

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 05:38 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
>>
>>"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>> >
>>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
>>> >...
>>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got
>>the
>>> >> >> better of the deal
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
>>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>>> >> >anyway.r
>>> >>
>>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
>>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
>>self.
>>> >
>>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have
>>him
>>> >killfiled.
>>>
>>> Still do.
>>>
>>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
>>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
>>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
>>alcoholic
>>> >megalomaniac.
>>>
>>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
>>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
>>>
>>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
>>Hudson,
>>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts.
>>I
>>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
>>them
>>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
>>posts.
>>> >
>>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>>> >
>>> ><sound of flushing water>
>>> >
>>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is that
>>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information that
>>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
>>don't make it public on usenet.
>
>I don't.
>
>Too bad you have become such a moron.
>
And he's one of the better Aussies.

David
September 17th 04, 05:42 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
> >>
> >>"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
> >>> >...
> >>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams
got
> >>the
> >>> >> >> better of the deal
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
> >>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by
myself,
> >>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> >>> >> >anyway.r
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
> >>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly
in
> >>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
> >>self.
> >>> >
> >>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks
have
> >>him
> >>> >killfiled.
> >>>
> >>> Still do.
> >>>
> >>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship
advice to
> >>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he
is?
> >>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
> >>alcoholic
> >>> >megalomaniac.
> >>>
> >>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
> >>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
> >>>
> >>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
> >>Hudson,
> >>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your
posts.
> >>I
> >>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
> >>them
> >>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
> >>posts.
> >>> >
> >>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
> >>> >
> >>> ><sound of flushing water>
> >>> >
> >>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is
that
> >>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information
that
> >>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
> >>don't make it public on usenet.
> >
> >I don't.
> >
> >Too bad you have become such a moron.
> >
> And he's one of the better Aussies.

Thanks . .. If only we knew a little more about guns we'd be perfect!

David
September 17th 04, 05:45 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:46:15 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >David wrote:
> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
> >> message ...
> >>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
> >>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
> >>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
> >>>
> >>> You mean 1993?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&outp
ut=gplain
> >>> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)
> >>
> >> That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post!
> >> I am surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian,
> >> and porn expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later
> >
> >What's amazing is he walks in, first post, and announces himself as "The
> >Instructor". Hurray! Everybody is saved! "Llye" is here to save the
day!
> >
> >What an arrogant dick...
>
> I thought I had that title.

I think I might have to do a new study about this - how about we give him
"most arrogant dick"?
>

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 05:47 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:46:15 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>David wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>>>
>>> You mean 1993?
>>>
>>>
>>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&output=gplain
>>> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)
>>
>> That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post!
>> I am surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian,
>> and porn expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later
>
>What's amazing is he walks in, first post, and announces himself as "The
>Instructor". Hurray! Everybody is saved! "Llye" is here to save the day!
>
>What an arrogant dick...

I thought I had that title.

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 05:54 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:42:46 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"elzinator" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>> >>> >> wrote:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
>> >>> >...
>> >>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams
>got
>> >>the
>> >>> >> >> better of the deal
>> >>> >> >
>> >>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
>> >>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by
>myself,
>> >>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>> >>> >> >anyway.r
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>> >>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly
>in
>> >>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
>> >>self.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks
>have
>> >>him
>> >>> >killfiled.
>> >>>
>> >>> Still do.
>> >>>
>> >>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship
>advice to
>> >>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he
>is?
>> >>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
>> >>alcoholic
>> >>> >megalomaniac.
>> >>>
>> >>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
>> >>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
>> >>>
>> >>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
>> >>Hudson,
>> >>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your
>posts.
>> >>I
>> >>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
>> >>them
>> >>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
>> >>posts.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>> >>> >
>> >>> ><sound of flushing water>
>> >>> >
>> >>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is
>that
>> >>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information
>that
>> >>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
>> >>don't make it public on usenet.
>> >
>> >I don't.
>> >
>> >Too bad you have become such a moron.
>> >
>> And he's one of the better Aussies.
>
>Thanks . .. If only we knew a little more about guns we'd be perfect!
>
Or just learn the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill
people.

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 05:55 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:45:08 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:46:15 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >David wrote:
>> >> "John M. Williams" > wrote in
>> >> message ...
>> >>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>> >>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>> >>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness)
>> >>>
>> >>> You mean 1993?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=931123.71132.LYLEMCD%40delphi.com&outp
>ut=gplain
>> >>> (http://tinyurl.com/658t4)
>> >>
>> >> That is good stuff. He was whining even then! On his very first post!
>> >> I am surprised he didn't impress the class of '93 with his lesbian,
>> >> and porn expertise - I suppose he had to save the good stuff for later
>> >
>> >What's amazing is he walks in, first post, and announces himself as "The
>> >Instructor". Hurray! Everybody is saved! "Llye" is here to save the
>day!
>> >
>> >What an arrogant dick...
>>
>> I thought I had that title.
>
>I think I might have to do a new study about this - how about we give him
>"most arrogant dick"?

Alright.

David
September 17th 04, 06:14 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:42:46 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"elzinator" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
> >> >>> >...
> >> >>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick,
Williams
> >got
> >> >>the
> >> >>> >> >> better of the deal
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
> >> >>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by
> >myself,
> >> >>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn
business
> >> >>> >> >anyway.r
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so
indiscreet
> >> >>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite
deservingly
> >in
> >> >>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty,
gritty
> >> >>self.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many
folks
> >have
> >> >>him
> >> >>> >killfiled.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Still do.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship
> >advice to
> >> >>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than
he
> >is?
> >> >>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
> >> >>alcoholic
> >> >>> >megalomaniac.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and
their
> >> >>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on
you
> >> >>Hudson,
> >> >>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your
> >posts.
> >> >>I
> >> >>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most
of
> >> >>them
> >> >>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other
folk's
> >> >>posts.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> ><sound of flushing water>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group.
Is
> >that
> >> >>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information
> >that
> >> >>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your
business
> >> >>don't make it public on usenet.
> >> >
> >> >I don't.
> >> >
> >> >Too bad you have become such a moron.
> >> >
> >> And he's one of the better Aussies.
> >
> >Thanks . .. If only we knew a little more about guns we'd be perfect!
> >
> Or just learn the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill
> people.

True . . . however it would be much harder to kill people if you didn't
have a gun in your glove compartment (say in a road rage episode) -
although I've been taking in all the reasons to support guns in USA - what's
the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line somewhere?

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 06:58 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:42:46 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
>> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"elzinator" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
>> >> >>> >...
>> >> >>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick,
>Williams
>> >got
>> >> >>the
>> >> >>> >> >> better of the deal
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
>> >> >>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by
>> >myself,
>> >> >>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn
>business
>> >> >>> >> >anyway.r
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so
>indiscreet
>> >> >>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite
>deservingly
>> >in
>> >> >>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty,
>gritty
>> >> >>self.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many
>folks
>> >have
>> >> >>him
>> >> >>> >killfiled.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Still do.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship
>> >advice to
>> >> >>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than
>he
>> >is?
>> >> >>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
>> >> >>alcoholic
>> >> >>> >megalomaniac.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and
>their
>> >> >>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on
>you
>> >> >>Hudson,
>> >> >>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your
>> >posts.
>> >> >>I
>> >> >>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most
>of
>> >> >>them
>> >> >>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other
>folk's
>> >> >>posts.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> ><sound of flushing water>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group.
>Is
>> >that
>> >> >>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information
>> >that
>> >> >>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your
>business
>> >> >>don't make it public on usenet.
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't.
>> >> >
>> >> >Too bad you have become such a moron.
>> >> >
>> >> And he's one of the better Aussies.
>> >
>> >Thanks . .. If only we knew a little more about guns we'd be perfect!
>> >
>> Or just learn the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill
>> people.
>
>True . . . however it would be much harder to kill people if you didn't
>have a gun in your glove compartment (say in a road rage episode) -
>although I've been taking in all the reasons to support guns in USA - what's
>the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line somewhere?
>
Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the USA
unless the permit holder was defending himself.

I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
legally. What's the problem?

David
September 17th 04, 07:06 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:42:46 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
> >> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"elzinator" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> ...
> >> >> >>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700,
(Elzinator)
> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> >...
> >> >> >>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick,
> >Williams
> >> >got
> >> >> >>the
> >> >> >>> >> >> better of the deal
> >> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> >>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
> >> >> >>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by
> >> >myself,
> >> >> >>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn
> >business
> >> >> >>> >> >anyway.r
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so
> >indiscreet
> >> >> >>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite
> >deservingly
> >> >in
> >> >> >>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >> >> >>> >>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty,
> >gritty
> >> >> >>self.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many
> >folks
> >> >have
> >> >> >>him
> >> >> >>> >killfiled.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Still do.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship
> >> >advice to
> >> >> >>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent
than
> >he
> >> >is?
> >> >> >>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than
this
> >> >> >>alcoholic
> >> >> >>> >megalomaniac.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and
> >their
> >> >> >>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on
> >you
> >> >> >>Hudson,
> >> >> >>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of
your
> >> >posts.
> >> >> >>I
> >> >> >>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see
most
> >of
> >> >> >>them
> >> >> >>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other
> >folk's
> >> >> >>posts.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> ><sound of flushing water>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this
group.
> >Is
> >> >that
> >> >> >>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to
information
> >> >that
> >> >> >>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your
> >business
> >> >> >>don't make it public on usenet.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Too bad you have become such a moron.
> >> >> >
> >> >> And he's one of the better Aussies.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks . .. If only we knew a little more about guns we'd be perfect!
> >> >
> >> Or just learn the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill
> >> people.
> >
> >True . . . however it would be much harder to kill people if you didn't
> >have a gun in your glove compartment (say in a road rage episode) -
> >although I've been taking in all the reasons to support guns in USA -
what's
> >the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line somewhere?
> >
> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the USA
> unless the permit holder was defending himself.
>
> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
> legally. What's the problem?

No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in 30 secs. . I
mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where would you draw the line
then? RPG's?

Kevin J
September 17th 04, 07:17 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On 15 Sep 2004 23:38:51 GMT, Lordy > wrote:
>
>>John HUDSON > wrote in
:
>>
>>> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
>>> can only be a part of it!!
>>>
>>
>>John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
>>
>>- mfw is a fairly high volume group.
>>- People participate for their own pleasure
>>
>>As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
>>the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
>>descending order)
>>
>>1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
>>
>>2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
>>you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
>>answered otherwise
>>
>>3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
>>know would be addresed by someone else anyhow
>>
>>Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
>>likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
>>months)
>>
>>On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
>>everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
>>to get on with their own lives!
>>
>>I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
>>"apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
>>contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
>>at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
>>you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out. Dont
>>worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
>>(even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!
>
>It's a pity that my input comes across that way because I've been
>doing it far too long here for that to be really true. The truth is
>that I enjoy what I do, and giving the erstwhile bullies the ****s is
>what I do in real life also, so we are what we are!!
>
>>
>>That mfw website thing was a no-no!
>
>I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
>http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
>
>No apologies there, it's just for fun. Let me have your .jpeg (in
>rugby kit?) ;o)

Nice collection of Pics Hudson! You're missing a few - happen to have
a pic of Lysis? I always wondered what that dude looked like.

Oh yeah, and where's my pic? I admit, I only posted regularly for one
year, and that was a couple years ago, but . . . well yeah, that's a
good reason.

Cheers, you pretentious ****** :-p

HAWG! (as you are wont to say)

--
kj

David
September 17th 04, 07:28 AM
"Kevin J" !> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
> wrote:
>
> >On 15 Sep 2004 23:38:51 GMT, Lordy > wrote:
> >
> >>John HUDSON > wrote in
> :
> >>
> >>> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
> >>> can only be a part of it!!
> >>>
> >>
> >>John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
> >>
> >>- mfw is a fairly high volume group.
> >>- People participate for their own pleasure
> >>
> >>As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
> >>the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
> >>descending order)
> >>
> >>1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
> >>
> >>2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
> >>you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
> >>answered otherwise
> >>
> >>3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
> >>know would be addresed by someone else anyhow
> >>
> >>Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
> >>likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
> >>months)
> >>
> >>On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
> >>everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
> >>to get on with their own lives!
> >>
> >>I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
> >>"apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
> >>contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
> >>at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
> >>you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out. Dont
> >>worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
> >>(even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!
> >
> >It's a pity that my input comes across that way because I've been
> >doing it far too long here for that to be really true. The truth is
> >that I enjoy what I do, and giving the erstwhile bullies the ****s is
> >what I do in real life also, so we are what we are!!
> >
> >>
> >>That mfw website thing was a no-no!
> >
> >I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
> >http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
> >
> >No apologies there, it's just for fun. Let me have your .jpeg (in
> >rugby kit?) ;o)
>
> Nice collection of Pics Hudson! You're missing a few - happen to have
> a pic of Lysis? I always wondered what that dude looked like.
>
> Oh yeah, and where's my pic? I admit, I only posted regularly for one
> year, and that was a couple years ago, but . . . well yeah, that's a
> good reason.
>
> Cheers, you pretentious ****** :-p
>
> HAWG! (as you are wont to say)

Hudson seems to select photos of mfw people who are high profile and might
be of general interest - Lysis probably hasn't posted his jpeg. (He must
have missed yours somehow).

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 02:46 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:42:46 GMT, "David" >
>> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:37:33 -0500, elzinator
>> >> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>"elzinator" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> ...
>> >> >> >>> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700,
>(Elzinator)
>> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> >"David" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> >...
>> >> >> >>> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick,
>> >Williams
>> >> >got
>> >> >> >>the
>> >> >> >>> >> >> better of the deal
>> >> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >> >>> >> >Whatthe****ever.
>> >> >> >>> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by
>> >> >myself,
>> >> >> >>> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn
>> >business
>> >> >> >>> >> >anyway.r
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so
>> >indiscreet
>> >> >> >>> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite
>> >deservingly
>> >> >in
>> >> >> >>> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>> >> >> >>> >>
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty,
>> >gritty
>> >> >> >>self.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many
>> >folks
>> >> >have
>> >> >> >>him
>> >> >> >>> >killfiled.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Still do.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship
>> >> >advice to
>> >> >> >>> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent
>than
>> >he
>> >> >is?
>> >> >> >>> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than
>this
>> >> >> >>alcoholic
>> >> >> >>> >megalomaniac.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and
>> >their
>> >> >> >>> private business of which he knows nothing about.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on
>> >you
>> >> >> >>Hudson,
>> >> >> >>> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of
>your
>> >> >posts.
>> >> >> >>I
>> >> >> >>> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see
>most
>> >of
>> >> >> >>them
>> >> >> >>> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other
>> >folk's
>> >> >> >>posts.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> ><sound of flushing water>
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this
>group.
>> >Is
>> >> >that
>> >> >> >>all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to
>information
>> >> >that
>> >> >> >>is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your
>> >business
>> >> >> >>don't make it public on usenet.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I don't.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Too bad you have become such a moron.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> And he's one of the better Aussies.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks . .. If only we knew a little more about guns we'd be perfect!
>> >> >
>> >> Or just learn the fact that guns don't kill people, people kill
>> >> people.
>> >
>> >True . . . however it would be much harder to kill people if you didn't
>> >have a gun in your glove compartment (say in a road rage episode) -
>> >although I've been taking in all the reasons to support guns in USA -
>what's
>> >the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line somewhere?
>> >
>> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the USA
>> unless the permit holder was defending himself.
>>
>> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
>> legally. What's the problem?
>
>No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in 30 secs. . I
>mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where would you draw the line
>then? RPG's?
>
Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American Public
in favor of renewing the AWB.

Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to own
submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the issue.

On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know who I
supported for the local state house seat. The woman couldn't even
pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie Sieben) who's last name
is very well known here (her father was speaker of the house I
believe). Anywho, they also asked me what was my most important issue
and rattled off 4 different issue of which none were related to guns.
My answer was "Guns!". She didn't know what to say.

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 02:50 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>
>I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
>http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
>
Can anybody guess what the white thing in front of the blue barrel in
the background of my pic was being used for?

Hehe

Larry Hodges
September 17th 04, 05:02 PM
John Hanson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>
>> I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
>> http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
>>
> Can anybody guess what the white thing in front of the blue barrel in
> the background of my pic was being used for?
>
> Hehe

Environmentally friendly composting barrel with a white sign stating "give
peace a chance"?
--
-Larry

David
September 17th 04, 07:13 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

[.....]

> >what's
> >> >the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
somewhere?
> >> >
> >> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the USA
> >> unless the permit holder was defending himself.
> >>
> >> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
> >> legally. What's the problem?
> >
> >No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in 30 secs.
.. I
> >mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where would you draw the
line
> >then? RPG's?
> >
> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
> It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American Public
> in favor of renewing the AWB.
>
> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to own
> submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the issue.
>
> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
> Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know who I
> supported for the local state house seat. The woman couldn't even
> pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie Sieben) who's last name
> is very well known here (her father was speaker of the house I
> believe). Anywho, they also asked me what was my most important issue
> and rattled off 4 different issue of which none were related to guns.
> My answer was "Guns!". She didn't know what to say.
>
I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon exists
that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is neater - then
you would want it and say there is no reason why any law abiding citizen
should not have it (on this point and with my massive knowledge in this
subject I think the UZI is the ultimate weapon for the home) - and this is
because if these more modern and more efficient weapons are generally
available to the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding people
have them. My point is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go back to
the time before the gatling gun - just a single shot rifle or a 6 round
magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon and nothing else would ever be
developed better or more efficient. Would you still want something better if
it would simply lead to a sort of arms race and just elevate the stakes all
the time? So my point is "where does it stop?" - there will always be
developed weapons that are neater and more destructive - one day there will
be something you can put in your pocked and you can simply point in one
direction and through lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire
regiment in one shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is
available to the bad guys)?

David
September 17th 04, 07:42 PM
"elzinator" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:25:41 GMT, David wrote:
> >
> >"elzinator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"David" > wrote in message
> >> >...
> >> >> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams
got
> >the
> >> >> >> better of the deal
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Whatthe****ever.
> >> >> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
> >> >> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
> >> >> >anyway.r
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
> >> >> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly
in
> >> >> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty
> >self.
> >> >
> >> >He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks
have
> >him
> >> >killfiled.
> >>
> >> Still do.
> >>
> >> >Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice
to
> >> >somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he
is?
> >> >And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
> >alcoholic
> >> >megalomaniac.
> >>
> >> And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
> >> private business of which he knows nothing about.
> >>
> >> >And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
> >Hudson,
> >> >consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your
posts.
> >I
> >> >only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of
> >them
> >> >or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's
> >posts.
> >> >
> >> >Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
> >> >
> >> ><sound of flushing water>
> >> >
> >Elzinator - you are fast becoming the premier whiner in this group. Is
that
> >all you ever do? Whine and Bitch? Hudson is only privy to information
that
> >is in the public domain. If you don;t want people to know your business
> >don't make it public on usenet.
>
> I don't.
>
> Too bad you have become such a moron.
>
> Toodles.
>
I feel bad Elzi - you have my unreserved apology

Donovan Rebbechi
September 17th 04, 08:07 PM
On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:

> I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon exists
> that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is neater - then
> you would want it and say there is no reason why any law abiding citizen
> should not have it (on this point and with my massive knowledge in this
> subject I think the UZI is the ultimate weapon for the home) - and this is
> because if these more modern and more efficient weapons are generally
> available to the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding people
> have them. My point is "where does it stop"?

There wre restrictions on firearm ownership prior to the AWB. For example,
you couldn't buy a machine gun from walmart before the AWB. The AWB banned
several of the more "scary looking" models of guns (an obvious loophole is one
could make essentially the same gun and rename it), and banned certain
features.

> developed weapons that are neater and more destructive - one day there will
> be something you can put in your pocked and you can simply point in one
> direction and through lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire
> regiment in one shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is
> available to the bad guys)?

Weapons such as missile launchers already exist (for example, the ones that
were used by terrorists to fire missiles at a plane in Kenya.) I don't think
anyone is calling for these to be made available to the general public.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David
September 17th 04, 08:15 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
>
> > I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon
exists
> > that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is neater -
then
> > you would want it and say there is no reason why any law abiding citizen
> > should not have it (on this point and with my massive knowledge in this
> > subject I think the UZI is the ultimate weapon for the home) - and
this is
> > because if these more modern and more efficient weapons are generally
> > available to the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding
people
> > have them. My point is "where does it stop"?
>
> There wre restrictions on firearm ownership prior to the AWB. For example,
> you couldn't buy a machine gun from walmart before the AWB. The AWB banned
> several of the more "scary looking" models of guns (an obvious loophole is
one
> could make essentially the same gun and rename it), and banned certain
> features.
>
> > developed weapons that are neater and more destructive - one day there
will
> > be something you can put in your pocked and you can simply point in one
> > direction and through lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire
> > regiment in one shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is
> > available to the bad guys)?
>
> Weapons such as missile launchers already exist (for example, the ones
that
> were used by terrorists to fire missiles at a plane in Kenya.) I don't
think
> anyone is calling for these to be made available to the general public.
>
Sure I can see that a gun enthusiast would have little interest in a missile
launcher - I was talking about potential weapons in the "format" of a gun or
rifle - that is my point - that we (USA) is set on a course of having to
acquire the latest and most destructive in that category of weaponry

Donovan Rebbechi
September 17th 04, 08:33 PM
On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
>

>> Weapons such as missile launchers already exist (for example, the ones that
>> were used by terrorists to fire missiles at a plane in Kenya.) I don't
>> think anyone is calling for these to be made available to the general
>> public.
>>
> Sure I can see that a gun enthusiast would have little interest in a missile
> launcher - I was talking about potential weapons in the "format" of a gun or
> rifle -

I think the launcher was handheld. But what about full-autos (machine guns) ?
These (even some of the old ones) are more destructive than any gun you can
easily buy in the US, but I don't see any push to make these available to the
general public.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David
September 17th 04, 08:46 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
> >
>
> >> Weapons such as missile launchers already exist (for example, the ones
that
> >> were used by terrorists to fire missiles at a plane in Kenya.) I don't
> >> think anyone is calling for these to be made available to the general
> >> public.
> >>
> > Sure I can see that a gun enthusiast would have little interest in a
missile
> > launcher - I was talking about potential weapons in the "format" of a
gun or
> > rifle -
>
> I think the launcher was handheld. But what about full-autos (machine
guns) ?
> These (even some of the old ones) are more destructive than any gun you
can
> easily buy in the US, but I don't see any push to make these available to
the
> general public.
>
OK, so what you are saying is that there is not a direct correlation
between 'availability' and 'desire for ownership' of these guns as they
become more 'sophisticated'?

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 09:15 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "David" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
>> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>[.....]
>
>> >what's
>> >> >the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
>somewhere?
>> >> >
>> >> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the USA
>> >> unless the permit holder was defending himself.
>> >>
>> >> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
>> >> legally. What's the problem?
>> >
>> >No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in 30 secs.
>. I
>> >mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where would you draw the
>line
>> >then? RPG's?
>> >
>> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
>> It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American Public
>> in favor of renewing the AWB.
>>
>> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to own
>> submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the issue.
>>
>> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
>> Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know who I
>> supported for the local state house seat. The woman couldn't even
>> pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie Sieben) who's last name
>> is very well known here (her father was speaker of the house I
>> believe). Anywho, they also asked me what was my most important issue
>> and rattled off 4 different issue of which none were related to guns.
>> My answer was "Guns!". She didn't know what to say.
>>
>I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon exists
>that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is neater - then
>you would want it and say there is no reason why any law abiding citizen
>should not have it (on this point and with my massive knowledge in this
>subject I think the UZI is the ultimate weapon for the home) - and this is
>because if these more modern and more efficient weapons are generally
>available to the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding people
>have them. My point is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go back to
>the time before the gatling gun - just a single shot rifle or a 6 round
>magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon and nothing else would ever be
>developed better or more efficient. Would you still want something better if
>it would simply lead to a sort of arms race and just elevate the stakes all
>the time? So my point is "where does it stop?" - there will always be
>developed weapons that are neater and more destructive - one day there will
>be something you can put in your pocked and you can simply point in one
>direction and through lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire
>regiment in one shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is
>available to the bad guys)?
>
What do you mean by "more powerful, more efficient, has more feature
and is neater?" My 104 year old Swedish Mauser is more powerful and
more efficient than an AK-47 (selective fire or not and mine is semi
auto only). One might say that the Swede has more features as the
site is adjustable from 300-1000 meters.

Your point is moot as some of the most powerful firearms were
developed years ago. I would take an M-1 Garand over an AK or SKS any
day. I'd even take that over a CETME but would prefer an M-1A to any
rifle I can think of off the top of my head. One other thing, don't
be thinking that an automatic weapon is deadlier than a semi auto. A
lot of experts, like Steven Cooper for instance, think a full auto
battle rifle is inferior to a semi auto. Full auto just wastes a lot
of ammunition and you have to reload more often.

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 09:16 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:02:05 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
>>> http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
>>>
>> Can anybody guess what the white thing in front of the blue barrel in
>> the background of my pic was being used for?
>>
>> Hehe
>
>Environmentally friendly composting barrel with a white sign stating "give
>peace a chance"?

Something like that:-)

David
September 17th 04, 09:39 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
> >> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> >[.....]
> >
> >> >what's
> >> >> >the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
> >somewhere?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the
USA
> >> >> unless the permit holder was defending himself.
> >> >>
> >> >> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
> >> >> legally. What's the problem?
> >> >
> >> >No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in 30
secs.
> >. I
> >> >mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where would you draw the
> >line
> >> >then? RPG's?
> >> >
> >> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
> >> It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American Public
> >> in favor of renewing the AWB.
> >>
> >> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to own
> >> submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the issue.
> >>
> >> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
> >> Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know who I
> >> supported for the local state house seat. The woman couldn't even
> >> pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie Sieben) who's last name
> >> is very well known here (her father was speaker of the house I
> >> believe). Anywho, they also asked me what was my most important issue
> >> and rattled off 4 different issue of which none were related to guns.
> >> My answer was "Guns!". She didn't know what to say.
> >>
> >I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon exists
> >that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is neater -
then
> >you would want it and say there is no reason why any law abiding citizen
> >should not have it (on this point and with my massive knowledge in this
> >subject I think the UZI is the ultimate weapon for the home) - and this
is
> >because if these more modern and more efficient weapons are generally
> >available to the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding people
> >have them. My point is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go back
to
> >the time before the gatling gun - just a single shot rifle or a 6 round
> >magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon and nothing else would ever
be
> >developed better or more efficient. Would you still want something better
if
> >it would simply lead to a sort of arms race and just elevate the stakes
all
> >the time? So my point is "where does it stop?" - there will always be
> >developed weapons that are neater and more destructive - one day there
will
> >be something you can put in your pocked and you can simply point in one
> >direction and through lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire
> >regiment in one shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is
> >available to the bad guys)?
> >
> What do you mean by "more powerful, more efficient, has more feature
> and is neater?" My 104 year old Swedish Mauser is more powerful and
> more efficient than an AK-47 (selective fire or not and mine is semi
> auto only). One might say that the Swede has more features as the
> site is adjustable from 300-1000 meters.
>
> Your point is moot as some of the most powerful firearms were
> developed years ago. I would take an M-1 Garand over an AK or SKS any
> day. I'd even take that over a CETME but would prefer an M-1A to any
> rifle I can think of off the top of my head. One other thing, don't
> be thinking that an automatic weapon is deadlier than a semi auto. A
> lot of experts, like Steven Cooper for instance, think a full auto
> battle rifle is inferior to a semi auto. Full auto just wastes a lot
> of ammunition and you have to reload more often.

OK, I can see that you are an enthusiast in the 'purist' sense and not just
after the "latest and greatest" - all my arguments go out the window - I'll
now go back to my knitting

David
September 17th 04, 11:36 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "David" >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David" >
> >> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> >[.....]
> >
> >> >what's
> >> >> >the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
> >somewhere?
> >> >> >
> >> >> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in the
USA
> >> >> unless the permit holder was defending himself.
> >> >>
> >> >> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
> >> >> legally. What's the problem?
> >> >
> >> >No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in 30
secs.
> >. I
> >> >mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where would you draw the
> >line
> >> >then? RPG's?
> >> >
> >> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
> >> It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American Public
> >> in favor of renewing the AWB.
> >>
> >> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to own
> >> submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the issue.
> >>
> >> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
> >> Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know who I
> >> supported for the local state house seat. The woman couldn't even
> >> pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie Sieben) who's last name
> >> is very well known here (her father was speaker of the house I
> >> believe). Anywho, they also asked me what was my most important issue
> >> and rattled off 4 different issue of which none were related to guns.
> >> My answer was "Guns!". She didn't know what to say.
> >>
> >I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon exists
> >that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is neater -
then
> >you would want it and say there is no reason why any law abiding citizen
> >should not have it (on this point and with my massive knowledge in this
> >subject I think the UZI is the ultimate weapon for the home) - and this
is
> >because if these more modern and more efficient weapons are generally
> >available to the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding people
> >have them. My point is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go back
to
> >the time before the gatling gun - just a single shot rifle or a 6 round
> >magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon and nothing else would ever
be
> >developed better or more efficient. Would you still want something better
if
> >it would simply lead to a sort of arms race and just elevate the stakes
all
> >the time? So my point is "where does it stop?" - there will always be
> >developed weapons that are neater and more destructive - one day there
will
> >be something you can put in your pocked and you can simply point in one
> >direction and through lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire
> >regiment in one shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is
> >available to the bad guys)?
> >
> What do you mean by "more powerful, more efficient, has more feature
> and is neater?" My 104 year old Swedish Mauser is more powerful and
> more efficient than an AK-47 (selective fire or not and mine is semi
> auto only). One might say that the Swede has more features as the
> site is adjustable from 300-1000 meters.
>
> Your point is moot as some of the most powerful firearms were
> developed years ago. I would take an M-1 Garand over an AK or SKS any
> day. I'd even take that over a CETME but would prefer an M-1A to any
> rifle I can think of off the top of my head. One other thing, don't
> be thinking that an automatic weapon is deadlier than a semi auto. A
> lot of experts, like Steven Cooper for instance, think a full auto
> battle rifle is inferior to a semi auto. Full auto just wastes a lot
> of ammunition and you have to reload more often.
>
Actually I'm starting to realize how much there is about this stuff the
layman needs a basic education about guns to be able to make intelligent
judgements

John HUDSON
September 18th 04, 12:20 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"David" > wrote in message
>...
>> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >
>> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
>> >> better of the deal
>> >
>> >Whatthe****ever.
>> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>> >anyway.r
>>
>> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
>> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>>
>
>Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty self.
>
>He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have him
>killfiled.
>
>Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
>somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
>And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this alcoholic
>megalomaniac.
>
>And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you Hudson,
>consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts. I
>only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of them
>or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's posts.
>
>Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>
><sound of flushing water>

I feel absolutely drained!!

John HUDSON
September 18th 04, 12:24 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:37:48 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote:

>John M. Williams wrote:
>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the total
>>>>> posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared to my
>>>>> overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was misc.fitness), I
>>>>> know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185 is probably 1/10th
>>>>> of 1% of them if that.
>>>>
>>>> That's a scarily good guesstimate. According to
>>>>
>>>
>http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_uauthors=lyle%20mcdonald&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
>>>> you've made over 40,000 posts! 1% of that obviously is 400 so 185
>>>> is a tad under 5/10 of that.
>>>
>>> There is no way that's right. I did a search for my name just to
>>> see how many I've posted in the short time I've been here. It says
>>> 10,700.
>>>
>>>
>http://groups.google.com.au/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=author%3Alarry+author%3Ahodges&btnG=Search
>>
>> Well, are you the ping-pong Larry Hodges and
>> )? That's where about 9,200 of those posts come from.
>>
>> Actually, I'm amazed that "John Williams" has only 45,200 posts. My
>> own MFW posts comprise almost a third of that. But, then again, I've
>> been posting here since late '95.
>
>You sure you don't mean posting since '85? Do I hear '75l

Ageless and dateless these pioneers, who make it up as they go along -
and who really gives a ****?

John HUDSON
September 18th 04, 12:28 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 20:18:45 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:32:28 GMT, Lee Michaels wrote:
>>
>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >"David" > wrote in message
>...
>>> >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>>> >
>>> >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got the
>>> >> better of the deal
>>> >
>>> >Whatthe****ever.
>>> >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>>> >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>>> >anyway.r
>>>
>>> I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>>> and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
>>> the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>>>
>>
>>Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty self.
>>
>>He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have him
>>killfiled.
>
>Still do.
>
>>Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
>>somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
>>And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this alcoholic
>>megalomaniac.
>
>And who apparently enjoys fabricating stories about others and their
>private business of which he knows nothing about.

Then deny you have yawned the chasm for Williams and Mc****** and I'll
provide a little more evidence to the contrary!!

John HUDSON
September 18th 04, 12:30 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:22:06 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]_s02...
>>
>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 16 Sep 2004 13:56:08 -0700, (Elzinator)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >"David" > wrote in message
>> >...
>> > >> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> > >
>> > >> Personally I feel that if Elzi ended up with McPrick, Williams got
>the
>> > >> better of the deal
>> > >
>> > >Whatthe****ever.
>> > >I'm perfectly happy and content being committed to being by myself,
>> > >thankyouverymuch. And it's none of your or anyone's damn business
>> > >anyway.r
>> >
>> > I think you deserve yourself, and given that you were so indiscreet
>> > and were so pleased with yourself, I think it is quite deservingly in
>> > the public domain - grotty and grubby as it is!!
>> >
>>
>> Scumbag Hudson has to drop by and inflict us with his grotty, gritty self.
>>
>> He also changed his e-mail addy because he knows that so many folks have
>him
>> killfiled.
>>
>> Can you imagine this stuffed english shirt giveing relationship advice to
>> somebody who is at least ten thousand times more intelligent than he is?
>> And has posted about a million times more on topic posts than this
>alcoholic
>> megalomaniac.
>>
>> And before you start bawling and sputtering about me picking on you
>Hudson,
>> consider this. I have you killfiled. I respond to very few of your posts.
>I
>> only respond to a fraction of them because either I don't see most of them
>> or I don't care enough to respond to the ones I see in other folk's posts.
>>
>> Back into the killfile for you whiner hudson.
>>
>> <sound of flushing water>
>>
>Lee, do you really think anyone really gives a **** as to who you do or
>don't killfile? Like having to make a public declaration is so childish.>


The man's a prick David, or did I already mention that? ;o)

John HUDSON
September 18th 04, 12:36 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:17:40 -0600, Kevin J
!> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On 15 Sep 2004 23:38:51 GMT, Lordy > wrote:
>>
>>>John HUDSON > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
>>>> can only be a part of it!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
>>>
>>>- mfw is a fairly high volume group.
>>>- People participate for their own pleasure
>>>
>>>As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
>>>the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
>>>descending order)
>>>
>>>1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
>>>
>>>2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
>>>you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
>>>answered otherwise
>>>
>>>3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
>>>know would be addresed by someone else anyhow
>>>
>>>Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
>>>likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
>>>months)
>>>
>>>On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
>>>everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
>>>to get on with their own lives!
>>>
>>>I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
>>>"apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
>>>contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
>>>at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
>>>you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out. Dont
>>>worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
>>>(even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!
>>
>>It's a pity that my input comes across that way because I've been
>>doing it far too long here for that to be really true. The truth is
>>that I enjoy what I do, and giving the erstwhile bullies the ****s is
>>what I do in real life also, so we are what we are!!
>>
>>>
>>>That mfw website thing was a no-no!
>>
>>I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
>>http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
>>
>>No apologies there, it's just for fun. Let me have your .jpeg (in
>>rugby kit?) ;o)
>
>Nice collection of Pics Hudson! You're missing a few - happen to have
>a pic of Lysis? I always wondered what that dude looked like.
>
>Oh yeah, and where's my pic? I admit, I only posted regularly for one
>year, and that was a couple years ago, but . . . well yeah, that's a
>good reason.
>
>Cheers, you pretentious ****** :-p
>
>HAWG! (as you are wont to say)

Let me have your ,jpeg!!

HAGW!!'o)

Larry Hodges
September 18th 04, 01:46 AM
John HUDSON wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 17:37:48 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> > wrote:
>
>> John M. Williams wrote:
>>> "Larry Hodges" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> DRS wrote:
>>>>> "Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since David is so bored, he should see what percentage of the
>>>>>> total posts the whining posts above make up. that is, compared
>>>>>> to my overall posting volume since 1983 (when this was
>>>>>> misc.fitness), I know I've made an ungodly number of posts. 185
>>>>>> is probably 1/10th of 1% of them if that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a scarily good guesstimate. According to
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_uauthors=lyle%20mcdonald&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en
>>>>> you've made over 40,000 posts! 1% of that obviously is 400 so 185
>>>>> is a tad under 5/10 of that.
>>>>
>>>> There is no way that's right. I did a search for my name just to
>>>> see how many I've posted in the short time I've been here. It says
>>>> 10,700.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://groups.google.com.au/groups?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=author%3Alarry+author%3Ahodges&btnG=Search
>>>
>>> Well, are you the ping-pong Larry Hodges and
>>> )? That's where about 9,200 of those posts come
>>> from.
>>>
>>> Actually, I'm amazed that "John Williams" has only 45,200 posts. My
>>> own MFW posts comprise almost a third of that. But, then again,
>>> I've been posting here since late '95.
>>
>> You sure you don't mean posting since '85? Do I hear '75l
>
> Ageless and dateless these pioneers, who make it up as they go along -
> and who really gives a ****?

Actually, I was just making fun of "Llye". I like Williams. I know you
don't John, but that's cool too. Have a good weekend!
--
-Larry

Larry Hodges
September 18th 04, 02:04 AM
David wrote:
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
>>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David"
>>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>> [.....]
>>>
>>>>> what's
>>>>>>> the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
>>>>>>> somewhere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in
>>>>>> the USA unless the permit holder was defending himself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
>>>>>> legally. What's the problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in
>>>>> 30 secs. . I mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where
>>>>> would you draw the line then? RPG's?
>>>>>
>>>> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
>>>> It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American
>>>> Public in favor of renewing the AWB.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to
>>>> own submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the
>>>> issue.
>>>>
>>>> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
>>>> Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know
>>>> who I supported for the local state house seat. The woman
>>>> couldn't even pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie
>>>> Sieben) who's last name is very well known here (her father was
>>>> speaker of the house I believe). Anywho, they also asked me what
>>>> was my most important issue and rattled off 4 different issue of
>>>> which none were related to guns. My answer was "Guns!". She
>>>> didn't know what to say.
>>>>
>>> I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon
>>> exists that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is
>>> neater - then you would want it and say there is no reason why any
>>> law abiding citizen should not have it (on this point and with my
>>> massive knowledge in this subject I think the UZI is the ultimate
>>> weapon for the home) - and this is because if these more modern
>>> and more efficient weapons are generally available to the bad guys,
>>> crims then why can't decent law abiding people have them. My point
>>> is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go back to the time
>>> before the gatling gun - just a single shot rifle or a 6 round
>>> magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon and nothing else would
>>> ever be developed better or more efficient. Would you still want
>>> something better if it would simply lead to a sort of arms race and
>>> just elevate the stakes all the time? So my point is "where does it
>>> stop?" - there will always be developed weapons that are neater and
>>> more destructive - one day there will be something you can put in
>>> your pocked and you can simply point in one direction and through
>>> lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire regiment in one
>>> shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is available
>>> to the bad guys)?
>>>
>> What do you mean by "more powerful, more efficient, has more feature
>> and is neater?" My 104 year old Swedish Mauser is more powerful and
>> more efficient than an AK-47 (selective fire or not and mine is semi
>> auto only). One might say that the Swede has more features as the
>> site is adjustable from 300-1000 meters.
>>
>> Your point is moot as some of the most powerful firearms were
>> developed years ago. I would take an M-1 Garand over an AK or SKS
>> any day. I'd even take that over a CETME but would prefer an M-1A
>> to any rifle I can think of off the top of my head. One other
>> thing, don't be thinking that an automatic weapon is deadlier than a
>> semi auto. A lot of experts, like Steven Cooper for instance, think
>> a full auto battle rifle is inferior to a semi auto. Full auto just
>> wastes a lot of ammunition and you have to reload more often.
>>
> Actually I'm starting to realize how much there is about this stuff
> the layman needs a basic education about guns to be able to make
> intelligent judgements

David, this is the smartest thing you've said on this topic and I admire you
for it.

What you need to do is shed the emotion on the subject of guns, and look at
facts. I realize you're talking about gun types here with Hanson, but I'll
address the topic of gun ownership and the right to carry in public. After
all, self defense is at the heart of gun rights, not just the right to own
hunting arms.

Here are some points to consider...

1. People who carry guns legally (with a concealed weapons permit) don't
commit crime. There isn't one instance of road rage with the thousands upon
thousands of US citizens legally carrying guns in their cars that I'm aware
of. The last time I renewed mine in the state of Oregon, I talked about
this with the testing officer. She said that Oregon now has over 38,000 CCW
holders (at that point in time) and Oregon had been issuing permits for
about 10 years. In all that time, there was never one instance of a CCW
holder committing a crime with their gun. Not one.

2. States and cities where they don't allow concealed weapons have much
higher violent crime rates than those that allow them. In cities where they
initiated CCW programs, crime went down. In every instance.

3. Guns deter violence more than facilitate it. For ever instance of a
self defense shooting, there are dozens of instances of how the show of a
gun averted the commission of a crime. I even did this one time. I simply
allowed my gun to be seen by a potentially violent dirt bag, and he became
extremely docile. End of confrontation.
--
-Larry

Donovan Rebbechi
September 18th 04, 03:25 AM
On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >> Weapons such as missile launchers already exist (for example, the ones
> that
>> >> were used by terrorists to fire missiles at a plane in Kenya.) I don't
>> >> think anyone is calling for these to be made available to the general
>> >> public.
>> >>
>> > Sure I can see that a gun enthusiast would have little interest in a
> missile
>> > launcher - I was talking about potential weapons in the "format" of a
> gun or
>> > rifle -
>>
>> I think the launcher was handheld. But what about full-autos (machine
> guns) ?
>> These (even some of the old ones) are more destructive than any gun you
> can
>> easily buy in the US, but I don't see any push to make these available to
> the
>> general public.
>>
> OK, so what you are saying is that there is not a direct correlation
> between 'availability' and 'desire for ownership' of these guns as they
> become more 'sophisticated'?

I'm just saying that "it" does stop at a reasonable point. When gun owners
make the argument that they want weapons because the bad guys have them, they
understand that (at least in America), you don't need a machine gun for
defensive purposes. As for the claim that they want the most destructive
weapons available in gun form, it simply isn't true.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

David
September 18th 04, 03:35 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David" >
> >>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David"
> >>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>>
> >>> [.....]
> >>>
> >>>>> what's
> >>>>>>> the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
> >>>>>>> somewhere?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in
> >>>>>> the USA unless the permit holder was defending himself.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
> >>>>>> legally. What's the problem?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in
> >>>>> 30 secs. . I mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where
> >>>>> would you draw the line then? RPG's?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine gun.
> >>>> It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the American
> >>>> Public in favor of renewing the AWB.
> >>>>
> >>>> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able to
> >>>> own submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing the
> >>>> issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer, Labor
> >>>> Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted to know
> >>>> who I supported for the local state house seat. The woman
> >>>> couldn't even pronounce the name of her own candidate (Katie
> >>>> Sieben) who's last name is very well known here (her father was
> >>>> speaker of the house I believe). Anywho, they also asked me what
> >>>> was my most important issue and rattled off 4 different issue of
> >>>> which none were related to guns. My answer was "Guns!". She
> >>>> didn't know what to say.
> >>>>
> >>> I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon
> >>> exists that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features, is
> >>> neater - then you would want it and say there is no reason why any
> >>> law abiding citizen should not have it (on this point and with my
> >>> massive knowledge in this subject I think the UZI is the ultimate
> >>> weapon for the home) - and this is because if these more modern
> >>> and more efficient weapons are generally available to the bad guys,
> >>> crims then why can't decent law abiding people have them. My point
> >>> is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go back to the time
> >>> before the gatling gun - just a single shot rifle or a 6 round
> >>> magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon and nothing else would
> >>> ever be developed better or more efficient. Would you still want
> >>> something better if it would simply lead to a sort of arms race and
> >>> just elevate the stakes all the time? So my point is "where does it
> >>> stop?" - there will always be developed weapons that are neater and
> >>> more destructive - one day there will be something you can put in
> >>> your pocked and you can simply point in one direction and through
> >>> lasers (or something) you can destroy an entire regiment in one
> >>> shot - would you also want one of those (assuming it is available
> >>> to the bad guys)?
> >>>
> >> What do you mean by "more powerful, more efficient, has more feature
> >> and is neater?" My 104 year old Swedish Mauser is more powerful and
> >> more efficient than an AK-47 (selective fire or not and mine is semi
> >> auto only). One might say that the Swede has more features as the
> >> site is adjustable from 300-1000 meters.
> >>
> >> Your point is moot as some of the most powerful firearms were
> >> developed years ago. I would take an M-1 Garand over an AK or SKS
> >> any day. I'd even take that over a CETME but would prefer an M-1A
> >> to any rifle I can think of off the top of my head. One other
> >> thing, don't be thinking that an automatic weapon is deadlier than a
> >> semi auto. A lot of experts, like Steven Cooper for instance, think
> >> a full auto battle rifle is inferior to a semi auto. Full auto just
> >> wastes a lot of ammunition and you have to reload more often.
> >>
> > Actually I'm starting to realize how much there is about this stuff
> > the layman needs a basic education about guns to be able to make
> > intelligent judgements
>
> David, this is the smartest thing you've said on this topic and I admire
you
> for it.
>
> What you need to do is shed the emotion on the subject of guns, and look
at
> facts. I realize you're talking about gun types here with Hanson, but
I'll
> address the topic of gun ownership and the right to carry in public.
After
> all, self defense is at the heart of gun rights, not just the right to own
> hunting arms.
>
> Here are some points to consider...
>
> 1. People who carry guns legally (with a concealed weapons permit) don't
> commit crime. There isn't one instance of road rage with the thousands
upon
> thousands of US citizens legally carrying guns in their cars that I'm
aware
> of. The last time I renewed mine in the state of Oregon, I talked about
> this with the testing officer. She said that Oregon now has over 38,000
CCW
> holders (at that point in time) and Oregon had been issuing permits for
> about 10 years. In all that time, there was never one instance of a CCW
> holder committing a crime with their gun. Not one.
>
> 2. States and cities where they don't allow concealed weapons have much
> higher violent crime rates than those that allow them. In cities where
they
> initiated CCW programs, crime went down. In every instance.
>
> 3. Guns deter violence more than facilitate it. For ever instance of a
> self defense shooting, there are dozens of instances of how the show of a
> gun averted the commission of a crime. I even did this one time. I
simply
> allowed my gun to be seen by a potentially violent dirt bag, and he became
> extremely docile. End of confrontation.
> --
> -Larry
>
This is good stuff. Just shows when you get preconceived notions they are
not always easy to shake. You can;t argue with those kind of statistics.
Seems that it is a north - south thing - states in the south or south west
seem to favour liberal gun laws - north and north east seem the opposite.
Would not work here as there is no gun culture in this country - must help
to be comfortable around them , to grow up with guns like from an early age.
In states like Oregon and Texas can anyone with a clean record legally carry
or do you have to have a 'reason' other than for protection? Do you have to
show evidence that you can handle one - like membership in a gun club?

David
September 18th 04, 03:56 AM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
> >
> > "Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 2004-09-17, David > wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >> Weapons such as missile launchers already exist (for example, the
ones
> > that
> >> >> were used by terrorists to fire missiles at a plane in Kenya.) I
don't
> >> >> think anyone is calling for these to be made available to the
general
> >> >> public.
> >> >>
> >> > Sure I can see that a gun enthusiast would have little interest in a
> > missile
> >> > launcher - I was talking about potential weapons in the "format" of a
> > gun or
> >> > rifle -
> >>
> >> I think the launcher was handheld. But what about full-autos (machine
> > guns) ?
> >> These (even some of the old ones) are more destructive than any gun you
> > can
> >> easily buy in the US, but I don't see any push to make these available
to
> > the
> >> general public.
> >>
> > OK, so what you are saying is that there is not a direct correlation
> > between 'availability' and 'desire for ownership' of these guns as they
> > become more 'sophisticated'?
>
> I'm just saying that "it" does stop at a reasonable point. When gun owners
> make the argument that they want weapons because the bad guys have them,
they
> understand that (at least in America), you don't need a machine gun for
> defensive purposes. As for the claim that they want the most destructive
> weapons available in gun form, it simply isn't true.

thanks Donovan. . .starting to get the picture!

Kevin J
September 18th 04, 05:20 AM
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:36:13 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:17:40 -0600, Kevin J
!> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:21:19 +0100, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Sep 2004 23:38:51 GMT, Lordy > wrote:
>>>
>>>>John HUDSON > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>> There is obviously something quite wrong with some of them, and OCD
>>>>> can only be a part of it!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>John, at the risk of being ostracised I'll play devils advocate !
>>>>
>>>>- mfw is a fairly high volume group.
>>>>- People participate for their own pleasure
>>>>
>>>>As someone who has participated in other high volume groups (Google me!)
>>>>the most pleasurable and least time consuming way is to either (in
>>>>descending order)
>>>>
>>>>1) Respond to regulars you have already had a "banter" with or
>>>>
>>>>2) Respond to subject lines/questions that pique your interest or that
>>>>you have a personal involvement with and know are unlikely to be
>>>>answered otherwise
>>>>
>>>>3) On an off day / charitable day - respond to a subject line that you
>>>>know would be addresed by someone else anyhow
>>>>
>>>>Unlike IT stuff , not much changes about the human body, so its far more
>>>>likely the same questions has been asked for years (as opposed to
>>>>months)
>>>>
>>>>On some groups - depending on my mood - it is pretty easy to just mark
>>>>everything as read! so I /try/ not to take it personally - people have
>>>>to get on with their own lives!
>>>>
>>>>I do like and enjoy some of your contribution, and agree the
>>>>"apparent?" cliqueness can be offputing to some others that wish to
>>>>contribute, but the more you sound like someone that has been "annoyed
>>>>at being left out" the more you invalidate your own stance ! Recently
>>>>you have just constantly sounded like the kid thats been left out. Dont
>>>>worry about it! Just post your stuff without trying to trash others
>>>>(even if they do to the contrary) and you'll have my respect!
>>>
>>>It's a pity that my input comes across that way because I've been
>>>doing it far too long here for that to be really true. The truth is
>>>that I enjoy what I do, and giving the erstwhile bullies the ****s is
>>>what I do in real life also, so we are what we are!!
>>>
>>>>
>>>>That mfw website thing was a no-no!
>>>
>>>I assume you mean my web site and the MFW pages:
>>>http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm
>>>
>>>No apologies there, it's just for fun. Let me have your .jpeg (in
>>>rugby kit?) ;o)
>>
>>Nice collection of Pics Hudson! You're missing a few - happen to have
>>a pic of Lysis? I always wondered what that dude looked like.
>>
>>Oh yeah, and where's my pic? I admit, I only posted regularly for one
>>year, and that was a couple years ago, but . . . well yeah, that's a
>>good reason.
>>
>>Cheers, you pretentious ****** :-p
>>
>>HAWG! (as you are wont to say)
>
>Let me have your ,jpeg!!
>
>HAGW!!'o)

Oh right, I had to mistype that. Although 'hawg' does have a nice
ring to it.

My jpeg is out there, I did post a link here back in the fall of 2002,
I believe. M'eh - I'm not much of a contributor to MFW these days
anyway!

I take it you don't have a pic of Lysis then?

A shame.

HAGW!



--
kj

Larry Hodges
September 21st 04, 01:52 AM
David wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> David wrote:
>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 18:13:50 GMT, "David" >
>>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 06:06:29 GMT, "David"
>>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:14:45 GMT, "David"
>>>>>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>>
>>>>> [.....]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> what's
>>>>>>>>> the deal with AK47's? I s'pose you are happy to draw the line
>>>>>>>>> somewhere?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Road rage incidences involving permit holders do NOT happen in
>>>>>>>> the USA unless the permit holder was defending himself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I own an AK-47 that was bought during the AWB and it was bought
>>>>>>>> legally. What's the problem?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No kidding - I guess you could waste a well armed bikie gang in
>>>>>>> 30 secs. . I mean we are talking about a submachine gun - where
>>>>>>> would you draw the line then? RPG's?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you say that? It's a semi automatic, not a submachine
>>>>>> gun. It's this sort of misinformation that had 68% of the
>>>>>> American Public in favor of renewing the AWB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having said that, I think law abiding citizens ought to be able
>>>>>> to own submachine guns. And artillery. But, I'm not pressing
>>>>>> the issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a side note, I got a call from the DFL (Democrat, Farmer,
>>>>>> Labor Party) last night. They had me take a survey and wanted
>>>>>> to know who I supported for the local state house seat. The
>>>>>> woman couldn't even pronounce the name of her own candidate
>>>>>> (Katie Sieben) who's last name is very well known here (her
>>>>>> father was speaker of the house I believe). Anywho, they also
>>>>>> asked me what was my most important issue and rattled off 4
>>>>>> different issue of which none were related to guns. My answer
>>>>>> was "Guns!". She didn't know what to say.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I see your interest in guns as that of an enthusiast - if a weapon
>>>>> exists that is more powerful, more efficient, has more features,
>>>>> is neater - then you would want it and say there is no reason why
>>>>> any law abiding citizen should not have it (on this point and
>>>>> with my massive knowledge in this subject I think the UZI is the
>>>>> ultimate weapon for the home) - and this is because if these
>>>>> more modern and more efficient weapons are generally available to
>>>>> the bad guys, crims then why can't decent law abiding people have
>>>>> them. My point is "where does it stop"? Let's say we could go
>>>>> back to the time before the gatling gun - just a single shot
>>>>> rifle or a 6 round magazine. And that was the ultimate weapon
>>>>> and nothing else would ever be developed better or more
>>>>> efficient. Would you still want something better if it would
>>>>> simply lead to a sort of arms race and just elevate the stakes
>>>>> all the time? So my point is "where does it stop?" - there will
>>>>> always be developed weapons that are neater and more destructive
>>>>> - one day there will be something you can put in your pocked and
>>>>> you can simply point in one direction and through lasers (or
>>>>> something) you can destroy an entire regiment in one shot -
>>>>> would you also want one of those (assuming it is available to the
>>>>> bad guys)?
>>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "more powerful, more efficient, has more
>>>> feature and is neater?" My 104 year old Swedish Mauser is more
>>>> powerful and more efficient than an AK-47 (selective fire or not
>>>> and mine is semi auto only). One might say that the Swede has
>>>> more features as the site is adjustable from 300-1000 meters.
>>>>
>>>> Your point is moot as some of the most powerful firearms were
>>>> developed years ago. I would take an M-1 Garand over an AK or SKS
>>>> any day. I'd even take that over a CETME but would prefer an M-1A
>>>> to any rifle I can think of off the top of my head. One other
>>>> thing, don't be thinking that an automatic weapon is deadlier than
>>>> a semi auto. A lot of experts, like Steven Cooper for instance,
>>>> think a full auto battle rifle is inferior to a semi auto. Full
>>>> auto just wastes a lot of ammunition and you have to reload more
>>>> often.
>>>>
>>> Actually I'm starting to realize how much there is about this stuff
>>> the layman needs a basic education about guns to be able to make
>>> intelligent judgements
>>
>> David, this is the smartest thing you've said on this topic and I
>> admire you for it.
>>
>> What you need to do is shed the emotion on the subject of guns, and
>> look at facts. I realize you're talking about gun types here with
>> Hanson, but I'll address the topic of gun ownership and the right to
>> carry in public. After all, self defense is at the heart of gun
>> rights, not just the right to own hunting arms.
>>
>> Here are some points to consider...
>>
>> 1. People who carry guns legally (with a concealed weapons permit)
>> don't commit crime. There isn't one instance of road rage with the
>> thousands upon thousands of US citizens legally carrying guns in
>> their cars that I'm aware of. The last time I renewed mine in the
>> state of Oregon, I talked about this with the testing officer. She
>> said that Oregon now has over 38,000 CCW holders (at that point in
>> time) and Oregon had been issuing permits for about 10 years. In
>> all that time, there was never one instance of a CCW holder
>> committing a crime with their gun. Not one.
>>
>> 2. States and cities where they don't allow concealed weapons have
>> much higher violent crime rates than those that allow them. In
>> cities where they initiated CCW programs, crime went down. In every
>> instance.
>>
>> 3. Guns deter violence more than facilitate it. For ever instance
>> of a self defense shooting, there are dozens of instances of how the
>> show of a gun averted the commission of a crime. I even did this
>> one time. I simply allowed my gun to be seen by a potentially
>> violent dirt bag, and he became extremely docile. End of
>> confrontation. --
>> -Larry
>>
> This is good stuff. Just shows when you get preconceived notions
> they are not always easy to shake. You can;t argue with those kind of
> statistics. Seems that it is a north - south thing - states in the
> south or south west seem to favour liberal gun laws - north and north
> east seem the opposite. Would not work here as there is no gun
> culture in this country - must help to be comfortable around them ,
> to grow up with guns like from an early age. In states like Oregon
> and Texas can anyone with a clean record legally carry or do you have
> to have a 'reason' other than for protection? Do you have to show
> evidence that you can handle one - like membership in a gun club?

Sorry David. I've been busy, and just haven't sat down to respond until
now.

Oregon is one of the most leftwing states in the US. And very anti-gun
politically. However, when the push to allow concealed weapons here was
proposed, those that were against allowing them had no data to support their
assertions that there would be widespread pandemonium. In fact, all the
data related to the "right to carry" issue (as it's referred to) support the
opposite, that law abiding citizens do not abuse their right to carry a gun
and that violent crime goes down.

There are those in Oregon that vehemently hate the fact that people can
carry guns, and they would love to repeal the issuance of concealed weapon
permits. But as I pointed out before, in all these years, there hasn't been
one instance of abuse.

To answer your question about a reason to carry, you don't need one. And
there is no gun club membership required. You do, however, have to attend a
basic one evening gun class where a sheriff discusses what you can/can't do
to protect yourself or someone else as well as basic gun safety. And you
can't be a convicted felon. That's about it. You don't have to qualify at
a range. However, most people that have weapons permits take the
responsibility to become proficient with their weapon anyway without the
government requirement to do so.

To be quite honest, I hardly ever carry my gun. The last time I did was
about a year ago. If I didn't have the martial arts background I do, I most
likely would carry it more than I do. If I travel in my car (a trip
someplace), I always take one. But I don't carry one on my person when
going out shopping or whatever. I see people that do. (You can recognize a
fanny pack that is designed to carry a gun.) Personally, I'm glad they have
them, and feel much more comfortable with law abiding people carrying guns.
--
-Larry

David
September 21st 04, 03:08 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> David wrote:
> >>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >>> ...

[......]
carry or do you have
> > to have a 'reason' other than for protection? Do you have to show
> > evidence that you can handle one - like membership in a gun club?
>
> Sorry David. I've been busy, and just haven't sat down to respond until
> now.
>
> Oregon is one of the most leftwing states in the US. And very anti-gun
> politically. However, when the push to allow concealed weapons here was
> proposed, those that were against allowing them had no data to support
their
> assertions that there would be widespread pandemonium. In fact, all the
> data related to the "right to carry" issue (as it's referred to) support
the
> opposite, that law abiding citizens do not abuse their right to carry a
gun
> and that violent crime goes down.
>
> There are those in Oregon that vehemently hate the fact that people can
> carry guns, and they would love to repeal the issuance of concealed weapon
> permits. But as I pointed out before, in all these years, there hasn't
been
> one instance of abuse.
>
> To answer your question about a reason to carry, you don't need one. And
> there is no gun club membership required. You do, however, have to attend
a
> basic one evening gun class where a sheriff discusses what you can/can't
do
> to protect yourself or someone else as well as basic gun safety. And you
> can't be a convicted felon. That's about it. You don't have to qualify
at
> a range. However, most people that have weapons permits take the
> responsibility to become proficient with their weapon anyway without the
> government requirement to do so.
>
> To be quite honest, I hardly ever carry my gun. The last time I did was
> about a year ago. If I didn't have the martial arts background I do, I
most
> likely would carry it more than I do. If I travel in my car (a trip
> someplace), I always take one. But I don't carry one on my person when
> going out shopping or whatever. I see people that do. (You can recognize
a
> fanny pack that is designed to carry a gun.) Personally, I'm glad they
have
> them, and feel much more comfortable with law abiding people carrying
guns.
> --
> -Larry
>
I was wondering what happened to you (wasn't worried of course that you had
met with foul play as you would have been 'carrying'!)
States likeOregon seem to be in a time warp -either way behind or way in
front - it is hard to figure out. I suppose it is 'freedom' taken to tne nth
degree and you have the stats to back you up that these gun laws work. Hard
to get my mind around that kind of society when you compare it to here - but
even so you can have some guy run amuck here and if there isn;t a cop around
he can keep popping people till the cows come home. And it has happened (not
often thank god).
Thanks for insight Larry

Axel of the North!
October 3rd 04, 02:59 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 07:46:01 +0100, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 22:09:37 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:
>
>>here David,
>>
>>If you're really bored, I have a homework assignment for you.
>>
>>I want you to research John "THE ENFORCER" William's posting history.
>>
>>First I want you to compare the total number of posts he's made since
>>appearing on mfw to the ones that actually contained on topic (meaning
>>relevant to lifting or nutrition or weights) information. I will be
>>surprised if it reaches, much less surpasses 5%.
>>
>>Then see how many of his posts were, as he calls it, 'troll hunting'.
>>Note how many of those were simply him continuing to feed the trolls.
>>As a self-proclaimed 'troll hunter', he has to keep them around by
>>constantly feeding them. This is clear to anybody who takes the time to
>>look. Ignoring the 'I'm making up for a small penis' gun banter that
>>goes on here, I bet this makes up the majority of his posting. That and
>>arguing with people even when he's clearly wrong.
>>
>>When you're done with that, I want you to find out how many times he has
>>EVER admitted he was wrong about something. I bring this up as he
>>regularly accuses others (esp. me) of never admitting when they were
>>wrong (even though I do it all the time when i am wrong). If you can
>>find 10 cases in his posting history (even when it was clear that he was
>>wrong) where he admitted it, I will be surprised. I can think of one
>>offhand, in a gun debate with T Blaze Boren.
>>
>>Sub-homework: See how many times he used pathetic ad-hominem attacks to
>>avoid admitting he was wrong. Or jsut resorted to name calling. To get
>>you started, find the thread where, in order to avoid admitting he was
>>wrong, he accused me of having a manic espisode. That was a good one.
>>
>>Sub-sub homework, see how many times he used a clear
>>distraction/outright falsehood to avoid admitting the truth. Starting
>>point: find the thread where I accused him of being fat and, to prove
>>that he wasn't, he posted a video of himself chinning. From the back.
>>As if video from the back proves **** about his big fat visceral fat
>>belly. Note that anyone with the technology to post such a video could
>>have easily posted video from the front to prove me wrong. Yet he did not.
>>
>>Finally, see how many times he tried to bluff/bully someone, had his
>>bluff called and punked out like the pathetic little bitch that he is.
>>Actually, I think I'm one of the few that he couldn't bully, he relies
>>on it to get his way most of the time but I won't fall for his ****.
>>First find the threads where he went on about the bromocriptine article
>>he was going to write. And never did. Maybe find out what happened to
>>his big occlusion experiment. Then find the thread where he tried to
>>blackmail me into not being mean to him by 'telling everyone my secret'.
>> Go find out what he did when I called his bluff. Hint: he punked out
>>like a pathetic little bitch.
>>
>>I could probably go on but the above should keep you busy for a while.
>>
>>have fun, I'm off to a wedding for the weekend.
>
>Now this is what is what *real* whining is all about, and Mc****** has
>the audacity to accuse others of this gross MFW sin.
>
>[For those who aren't aware, McDonald and Williams fell out in real
>life due to them both having an affaire with Mz Volk, who 'elzinated'
>them in turn, choosing Mc****** over Williams eventually, and then
>finding Mc****** not particularly nice.]
>

wow. it all makes sense now. that diabetic gets to pick and choose..

Axel of the North!
October 3rd 04, 04:11 AM
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:34:06 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:40:21 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Crybaby "David" whined and bitched
>> >>
>> >> > There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
>> >"whining
>> >> > and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
>> >> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
>study
>> >> > that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
>the
>> >posts
>> >> > that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and bitching".
>I
>> >> > selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
>> >numerical
>> >> > order
>> >> >
>> >> > Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185 posts
>were
>> >> > something about 'troll' warnings
>> >> > Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
>training
>> >> > himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
>> >> > John Williams - 42
>> >> > Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
>course
>> >of
>> >> > his 'baitings')
>> >> > John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels smelly
>> >farts)
>> >> > David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
>> >> > Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
>> >means)
>> >> > John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
>about
>> >> > some gun poll)
>> >> > Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
>> >
>> >Talk about a total retard.
>> >
>> >What you are talking about is me responding to you and Hudson (and a few
>> >others). If there were that many responses, it was to something that the
>> >tandem troll team said. And in almost all cases, it involved some kind of
>> >whining and bitching.
>> >
>> >See David Dunce, it works like this. If you get called on whining and
>> >bitching (or trolling), it is BECAUSE that is what you (and Hudson) are
>> >doing.
>> >
>> >If anything, your little exercise is deranged statistics prove that you
>are
>> >****ing people off. And we can be certain that what you are ****ing them
>off
>> >about has absolutely nothing to do with training and nutrition.
>> >
>> >You spent 11 days proving that people hate your guts??
>> >
>> >Feel better now?
>> >
>> >Retard.
>>
>> Tsk tsk Dopey, oh my!
>>
>> This just confirms how ****ing stupid *you* really are and why we find
>> it necessary to draw it to your attention so frequently. You are so
>> far up your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete
>> and utter ****ing idiot you are.
>>
>> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
>> Mc******, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
>> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
>> figures out of the air.
>>
>> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Michaels, and your master
>> ****** McD. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you both
>> hook line and sinker!!
>>
>> Well done David - nice one!!
>>
>> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
>
>Ha Ha!!! (high fives!!) - Thanks John, like I waste even even 2 minutes
>going back on googles to look at Lee's posts!!
>

yeah! that stupid retarded PMSing, bitching bitch****!

showed them!!!

David
October 3rd 04, 09:37 AM
"Axel of the North!" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:34:06 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 19:40:21 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Crybaby "David" whined and bitched
> >> >>
> >> >> > There have been a number of charges thrown around recently about
> >> >"whining
> >> >> > and bitching. I would like to set the record straight.
> >> >> > I just went right through Google - 5 years of postings. A massive
> >study
> >> >> > that took me 11 days full time. The object was to actually count
> >the
> >> >posts
> >> >> > that could be considered in the loosest sense "whining and
bitching".
> >I
> >> >> > selected 9 posters enirely at randon. These were my findings in
> >> >numerical
> >> >> > order
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Lee Michaels - 532 (many of these were about Hudson - 185
posts
> >were
> >> >> > something about 'troll' warnings
> >> >> > Lyle McDonald - 185 (many of these about not making any money,
> >training
> >> >> > himself too hard, lesbians and monkeys
> >> >> > John Williams - 42
> >> >> > Hoff - 18 (I suspect many of these were in the
> >course
> >> >of
> >> >> > his 'baitings')
> >> >> > John Hudson - 6 (many of these were about Lee Michaels
smelly
> >> >farts)
> >> >> > David (me) - 3 (barely makes the scale!)
> >> >> > Keith Hobman - 2 (Keith has not been a notorius whiner by any
> >> >means)
> >> >> > John Hanson - 1 (and this one was about the lack of posts
> >about
> >> >> > some gun poll)
> >> >> > Mistress Krista 0 (her farts don't smell)
> >> >
> >> >Talk about a total retard.
> >> >
> >> >What you are talking about is me responding to you and Hudson (and a
few
> >> >others). If there were that many responses, it was to something that
the
> >> >tandem troll team said. And in almost all cases, it involved some kind
of
> >> >whining and bitching.
> >> >
> >> >See David Dunce, it works like this. If you get called on whining and
> >> >bitching (or trolling), it is BECAUSE that is what you (and Hudson)
are
> >> >doing.
> >> >
> >> >If anything, your little exercise is deranged statistics prove that
you
> >are
> >> >****ing people off. And we can be certain that what you are ****ing
them
> >off
> >> >about has absolutely nothing to do with training and nutrition.
> >> >
> >> >You spent 11 days proving that people hate your guts??
> >> >
> >> >Feel better now?
> >> >
> >> >Retard.
> >>
> >> Tsk tsk Dopey, oh my!
> >>
> >> This just confirms how ****ing stupid *you* really are and why we find
> >> it necessary to draw it to your attention so frequently. You are so
> >> far up your own arse you that you just have no idea what a complete
> >> and utter ****ing idiot you are.
> >>
> >> It's quite obvious to everyone except you and that other ****ing goon
> >> Mc******, that David has done no such thing as carry out "a massive
> >> study". All he has done is used his sense of humour and plucked
> >> figures out of the air.
> >>
> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Michaels, and your master
> >> ****** McD. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you both
> >> hook line and sinker!!
> >>
> >> Well done David - nice one!!
> >>
> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
> >
> >Ha Ha!!! (high fives!!) - Thanks John, like I waste even even 2 minutes
> >going back on googles to look at Lee's posts!!
> >
>
> yeah! that stupid retarded PMSing, bitching bitch****!
>
> showed them!!!

true enough, Axel. you seem to be very perceptive. however try to avoid
being redundant. (retarded people would more than likely be stupid.) By the
way, is English your first language as otherwise you are doing quite well.
Now go back to your knitting or your other favourite activity (try changing
hands now and then)

Axel of the North!
October 7th 04, 05:28 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 08:37:01 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

[snipped for brevity]
>> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Michaels, and your master
>> >> ****** McD. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you both
>> >> hook line and sinker!!
>> >>
>> >> Well done David - nice one!!
>> >>
>> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
>> >
>> >Ha Ha!!! (high fives!!) - Thanks John, like I waste even even 2 minutes
>> >going back on googles to look at Lee's posts!!
>> >
>>
>> yeah! that stupid retarded PMSing, bitching bitch****!
>>
>> showed them!!!
>
>true enough, Axel. you seem to be very perceptive. however try to avoid
>being redundant. (retarded people would more than likely be stupid.) By the
>way, is English your first language as otherwise you are doing quite well.
>Now go back to your knitting or your other favourite activity (try changing
>hands now and then)
>

d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish! can i
change hands when i play "switch"?
);O>

David
October 7th 04, 07:55 AM
"Axel of the North!" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 08:37:01 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> [snipped for brevity]
> >> >> I'm afraid once again the joke is on you Michaels, and your master
> >> >> ****** McD. That's who the joke was aimed at, and it's caught you
both
> >> >> hook line and sinker!!
> >> >>
> >> >> Well done David - nice one!!
> >> >>
> >> >> BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..
> >> >
> >> >Ha Ha!!! (high fives!!) - Thanks John, like I waste even even 2
minutes
> >> >going back on googles to look at Lee's posts!!
> >> >
> >>
> >> yeah! that stupid retarded PMSing, bitching bitch****!
> >>
> >> showed them!!!
> >
> >true enough, Axel. you seem to be very perceptive. however try to avoid
> >being redundant. (retarded people would more than likely be stupid.) By
the
> >way, is English your first language as otherwise you are doing quite
well.
> >Now go back to your knitting or your other favourite activity (try
changing
> >hands now and then)
> >
>
> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish! can i
> change hands when i play "switch"?
> );O>

you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are sober

John M. Williams
October 7th 04, 08:30 AM
"David" > wrote:
>
>"Axel of the North!" > wrote:
>>
>> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish! can i
>> change hands when i play "switch"?
>> );O>
>
>you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are sober

Oh I thought he was doing a Hudson impression.

David
October 7th 04, 08:37 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote:
> >
> >"Axel of the North!" > wrote:
> >>
> >> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish! can i
> >> change hands when i play "switch"?
> >> );O>
> >
> >you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are sober
>
> Oh . I thought he was doing a Hudson impression.

yes, close, although Hudson is mostly *totally* incoherent.

John HUDSON
October 7th 04, 09:13 AM
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:30:34 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>"David" > wrote:
>>
>>"Axel of the North!" > wrote:
>>>
>>> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish! can i
>>> change hands when i play "switch"?
>>> );O>
>>
>>you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are sober
>
>Oh I thought he was doing a Hudson impression.

Still squirming because you *can't* drink john boy, and I am able to
enjoy myself?

Is this gratuitous insult hurling an indication that you are up for
some sport? I do hope so, as I am really in the mood and need to hone
my skills against worthy opposition.

Let the games begin Williams!! ;o)

John HUDSON
October 7th 04, 09:14 AM
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 07:37:49 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "David" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Axel of the North!" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish! can i
>> >> change hands when i play "switch"?
>> >> );O>
>> >
>> >you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are sober
>>
>> Oh . I thought he was doing a Hudson impression.
>
>yes, close, although Hudson is mostly *totally* incoherent.

Only at the weekends!! ;o)

Larry Hodges
October 7th 04, 08:48 PM
John HUDSON wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:30:34 -0400, John M. Williams
> > wrote:
>
>> "David" > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Axel of the North!" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish!
>>>> can i change hands when i play "switch"?
>>>> );O>
>>>
>>> you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are
>>> sober
>>
>> Oh . I thought he was doing a Hudson impression.
>
> Still squirming because you *can't* drink john boy, and I am able to
> enjoy myself?
>
> Is this gratuitous insult hurling an indication that you are up for
> some sport? I do hope so, as I am really in the mood and need to hone
> my skills against worthy opposition.
>
> Let the games begin Williams!! ;o)

This thread is supposed to be dead. Didn't you guys get the memo? Take it
outside fellas!
--
-Larry

John HUDSON
October 7th 04, 08:54 PM
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 12:48:17 -0700, "Larry Hodges"
> wrote:

>John HUDSON wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 03:30:34 -0400, John M. Williams
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Axel of the North!" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> d'ahhhh! me no want be redummy! me smart! engish firsh langish!
>>>>> can i change hands when i play "switch"?
>>>>> );O>
>>>>
>>>> you are getting better Axel. Now just try to sound like you are
>>>> sober
>>>
>>> Oh . I thought he was doing a Hudson impression.
>>
>> Still squirming because you *can't* drink john boy, and I am able to
>> enjoy myself?
>>
>> Is this gratuitous insult hurling an indication that you are up for
>> some sport? I do hope so, as I am really in the mood and need to hone
>> my skills against worthy opposition.
>>
>> Let the games begin Williams!! ;o)
>
>This thread is supposed to be dead. Didn't you guys get the memo? Take it
>outside fellas!

It aint dead 'til the "bitch" stops "whining"!! ;o)