PDA

View Full Version : MFW WTF?


zeroblank
November 28th 04, 02:51 PM
Is this group about weights or what?

Steve Freides
November 28th 04, 03:30 PM
"zeroblank" > wrote in message
om...
> Is this group about weights or what?

This is a group about "or what."

Or maybe it's about "or what?"

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

David Cohen
November 28th 04, 04:13 PM
"Steve Freides" > wrote
" > wrote
>> Is this group about weights or what?
>
> This is a group about "or what."
>
> Or maybe it's about "or what?"

Steve, stop being so coy, you beast, and tell the cute new guy the truth.

MFW is a gay bodybuilder group, sailor. Welcome aboard. Got any naked jpegs
to share?

David

John Hanson
November 28th 04, 05:37 PM
On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>Is this group about weights or what?

You sure got a purty mouth.

bc
November 28th 04, 10:26 PM
"Steve Freides" > wrote in message >...
> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Is this group about weights or what?
>
> This is a group about "or what."
>
> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com

This is a group?

- bc

abscam
November 28th 04, 10:30 PM
(zeroblank) wrote in message >...
> Is this group about weights or what?

i was thinking the same thing

DHW
November 29th 04, 04:43 AM
On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
wrote:

>Is this group about weights or what?

It all depends on when you arrive.

Lately it has been about how all non-Americans ('foreigners' does not
work here) hate Americans. North Americans actually. North Americans
South of Canada to be even more specific. The joke, of course, is that
there are plenty of South-of-Canada-North-Americans that hate that
same group. (The members of MFW hate each other -- regardless of
origin of posting -- they just hate you more. That last bit is from
the FAQ; perhaps the unofficial faq).

For the 8 weeks leading up to the US election, MFW was about the
superiority of the Democratic party. Or the superiority of the
Republican party. Sometimes Nader's gam's, Cheney's gay relatives,
which Bush girl is hotter, or other peripheral US election stuff.

Right after the election it was about what babys the Dems are. Nobody
works a buffet like a Baptist; nobody gloats like a Republican.

I keep seeing references to posts about dogs and guns though I've
never fallen into a post about either. There are enough references to
those posts that the topics must have been hot at one time. For all I
know, these topics are discussed daily and I subconciously block them
out. I suspect these topics were hottest before the election. I
further suspect these topics have great staying power and will return
to favor once the world gets tired of talking about how much they hate
South-of-Canadians.

A lot of the time this is a forum about Usenet etiquette and why top
posting marks a person as a lowlife asshole (Not to be confused with
natives of the United States, who are of course, lowlife asshole
babykillers). Oh yea, and how people who reply to 1000-line posts with
a "me too" without doing any form of snipping are even more useless
than top posters.

Once in while it is about the evils of Bowflex.

I don't know that Elvis is ever discussed here.

Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
weightlifting and nutrition.



D. Wells


Remove the numbers to mail me. Include the text "gore-in-2004"
(without quotation marks) to ensure you make it past the spam filter.

Robert Schuh
November 29th 04, 07:08 AM
Steve Freides wrote:

> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Is this group about weights or what?
>
> This is a group about "or what."
>
> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com

MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
not an excuse.


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

John HUDSON
November 29th 04, 08:54 AM
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:

>On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
>wrote:
>
>>Is this group about weights or what?
>
>It all depends on when you arrive.
>
>Lately it has been about how all non-Americans ('foreigners' does not
>work here) hate Americans. North Americans actually. North Americans
>South of Canada to be even more specific. The joke, of course, is that
>there are plenty of South-of-Canada-North-Americans that hate that
>same group. (The members of MFW hate each other -- regardless of
>origin of posting -- they just hate you more. That last bit is from
>the FAQ; perhaps the unofficial faq).
>
>For the 8 weeks leading up to the US election, MFW was about the
>superiority of the Democratic party. Or the superiority of the
>Republican party. Sometimes Nader's gam's, Cheney's gay relatives,
>which Bush girl is hotter, or other peripheral US election stuff.
>
>Right after the election it was about what babys the Dems are. Nobody
>works a buffet like a Baptist; nobody gloats like a Republican.
>
>I keep seeing references to posts about dogs and guns though I've
>never fallen into a post about either. There are enough references to
>those posts that the topics must have been hot at one time. For all I
>know, these topics are discussed daily and I subconciously block them
>out. I suspect these topics were hottest before the election. I
>further suspect these topics have great staying power and will return
>to favor once the world gets tired of talking about how much they hate
>South-of-Canadians.
>
>A lot of the time this is a forum about Usenet etiquette and why top
>posting marks a person as a lowlife asshole (Not to be confused with
>natives of the United States, who are of course, lowlife asshole
>babykillers). Oh yea, and how people who reply to 1000-line posts with
>a "me too" without doing any form of snipping are even more useless
>than top posters.
>
>Once in while it is about the evils of Bowflex.
>
>I don't know that Elvis is ever discussed here.
>
>Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
>weightlifting and nutrition.

Well summed up D.Wells, not that any of those responsible will pay the
slightest attention.

There is a perversity about the mindset of those obsessed with their
bodies, that makes them resentful of criticism, which combined with a
high level of testosterone guarantees a hostile response!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

John HUDSON
November 29th 04, 09:01 AM
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
wrote:

>Steve Freides wrote:
>
>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>
>> This is a group about "or what."
>>
>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>
>> -S-
>> http://www.kbnj.com
>
>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>not an excuse.

The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
dare I say very BORING?!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

Will Brink
November 29th 04, 02:34 PM
In article >,
(zeroblank) wrote:

> Is this group about weights or what?

No

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John HUDSON
November 29th 04, 04:05 PM
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:34:33 -0500, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (zeroblank) wrote:
>
>> Is this group about weights or what?
>
>No

Eh?

Tifosi Bob
November 29th 04, 05:13 PM
"zeroblank" > wrote in message
om...
> Is this group about weights or what?

the election is over...

<insert a ****ing moronic republican dumb-****
head-up-his-disease-infested-ass comment>

so I don't post here anymore.

Bob

Elzinator
November 29th 04, 06:57 PM
Robert Schuh > wrote in message >...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > "zeroblank" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Is this group about weights or what?
> >
> > This is a group about "or what."
> >
> > Or maybe it's about "or what?"
> >
> > -S-
> > http://www.kbnj.com
>
> MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
> who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
> not an excuse.

I agree, Rob. It has become boring as hell.

Larry Hodges
November 30th 04, 03:11 AM
Tifosi Bob wrote:
> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
> om...
>> Is this group about weights or what?
>
> the election is over...
>
> <insert a ****ing moronic republican dumb-****
> head-up-his-disease-infested-ass comment>
>
> so I don't post here anymore.
>
> Bob

Finally.
--
-Larry
Canada...leading the world in being just north of the United States.

Adam PR Taylor
November 30th 04, 04:33 AM
DHW > wrote in message >...

[snip summary of mutual hatred politicain daughters, political
gloating, dogs and guns, Usenet etiquette, Bowflex, and Elvis]

> Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
> weightlifting and nutrition.


U-huh.

There is something about lifting heavy objects for no other purpose
than the satisfaction that comes from doing so, or simply looking
good, that attracts the ego-maniacs, freaks, OCD sufferers, or
one-eyed absolutists.

Given the above, it is not really surprising that a comment made will
result in a verbal war of attrition, which I for one often find quite
enlightening and educational (or perhaps that is just the academic in
me?) unless it degenerates into mindless name-calling and straw-man
assassination.

As a hunter and firearms enthusiest myself, I have learned much of the
US and EU hunting and firearms laws. Similar commenst could be had
WRT dogs. The research and accidental readings I found associated
with my recent attempted enlightenment of John Hanson after his
unsupported disparaging comments about the NZ military was actually
quite refreashing and enjoyable: I learnt something about this small
nations history, and an apprecaition for how it's identity was formed
within living memory.

I suppose these factors is why I have been hanging around here for 10
years now :)


--
Adam PR Taylor
http://www.nelliedog.co.nz

Rural living is good living
November 30th 04, 06:53 AM
>. Why do you think 99% of the people
>who made this group no longer post here?
>
>
>--
>Robert Schuh

I've been on this group forever, so stick it!
_______
"They charge you $15 if you fail to show for your 'free' appointment" by Lurker
on a Gold's Gym policy.

Tired of corrupt politicians and busybodies trying to run your life, family,
and property?
Visit http://www.freestateproject.com

John M. Williams
November 30th 04, 07:15 AM
(Rural living is good living) wrote:

>>. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>who made this group no longer post here?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Robert Schuh
>
>I've been on this group forever, so stick it!

<heh> FunBot

Pat Styles
November 30th 04, 04:01 PM
"Adam PR Taylor" > wrote in message
om...
> DHW > wrote in message
> >...
>
> [snip summary of mutual hatred politicain daughters, political
> gloating, dogs and guns, Usenet etiquette, Bowflex, and Elvis]
>
>> Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
>> weightlifting and nutrition.
>
>
> U-huh.
>
> There is something about lifting heavy objects for no other purpose
> than the satisfaction that comes from doing so, or simply looking
> good, that attracts the ego-maniacs, freaks, OCD sufferers, or
> one-eyed absolutists.
>
> Given the above, it is not really surprising that a comment made will
> result in a verbal war of attrition, which I for one often find quite
> enlightening and educational (or perhaps that is just the academic in
> me?) unless it degenerates into mindless name-calling and straw-man
> assassination.
>
> As a hunter and firearms enthusiest myself, I have learned much of the
> US and EU hunting and firearms laws. Similar commenst could be had
> WRT dogs. The research and accidental readings I found associated
> with my recent attempted enlightenment of John Hanson after his
> unsupported disparaging comments about the NZ military was actually
> quite refreashing and enjoyable: I learnt something about this small
> nations history, and an apprecaition for how it's identity was formed
> within living memory.

I'm glad you got something useful out of it, because I couldn't figure out why
you were arguing with that idiot.
ps

John Hanson
November 30th 04, 04:11 PM
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:01:56 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>"Adam PR Taylor" > wrote in message
om...
>> DHW > wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>> [snip summary of mutual hatred politicain daughters, political
>> gloating, dogs and guns, Usenet etiquette, Bowflex, and Elvis]
>>
>>> Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
>>> weightlifting and nutrition.
>>
>>
>> U-huh.
>>
>> There is something about lifting heavy objects for no other purpose
>> than the satisfaction that comes from doing so, or simply looking
>> good, that attracts the ego-maniacs, freaks, OCD sufferers, or
>> one-eyed absolutists.
>>
>> Given the above, it is not really surprising that a comment made will
>> result in a verbal war of attrition, which I for one often find quite
>> enlightening and educational (or perhaps that is just the academic in
>> me?) unless it degenerates into mindless name-calling and straw-man
>> assassination.
>>
>> As a hunter and firearms enthusiest myself, I have learned much of the
>> US and EU hunting and firearms laws. Similar commenst could be had
>> WRT dogs. The research and accidental readings I found associated
>> with my recent attempted enlightenment of John Hanson after his
>> unsupported disparaging comments about the NZ military was actually
>> quite refreashing and enjoyable: I learnt something about this small
>> nations history, and an apprecaition for how it's identity was formed
>> within living memory.
>
>I'm glad you got something useful out of it, because I couldn't figure out why
>you were arguing with that idiot.

Hehe...wuss.

DHW
November 30th 04, 05:28 PM
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:

>On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
>wrote:
>
>>Is this group about weights or what?
>
>It all depends on when you arrive.
>
I forgot to mention ...

Sometimes the group is about speling and grammer. The arguments that
come from that are enough to make one loose one's mind.

There is very little bitching about typos. That I've noticed anyway.
And so far nobody has busted my chops about my overuse of elipses.

Someone will point out that I have misspelled spelling and grammar
above and that I used loose instead of lose. The loose/lose item is
enough to send spasms down some people's backs disenabling them from
continuing to read a post through its entirety. Sometimes the group is
about short attention spans. (For those of you on the edge of spasms,
I throw a 'how can I get more toned' in your general direction.)

I make no claims getting torqued out of shape about grammar, spelling,
loose/lose or toning is bad. Letting it affect you to the point that
you can't make your way through the rest of the post before replying
is a tad insane. [(Sometimes the group is about covering your ass. You
never really know how big some of these people may be -- how close
they may live to you -- or about their ability to track you down. (And
thus, the people who read through the entire post know I didn't mean
them ... and those that didn't ... well.)]

The group is always entertaining. Even the trolls are of a higher
grade here.

D. Wells


Remove the numbers to mail me. Include the text "gore-in-2004"
(without quotation marks) to ensure you make it past the spam filter.

Lee Michaels
November 30th 04, 05:53 PM
"DHW" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:
>
> >On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Is this group about weights or what?
> >
> >It all depends on when you arrive.
> >
> I forgot to mention ...
>
> Sometimes the group is about speling and grammer. The arguments that
> come from that are enough to make one loose one's mind.
>
> There is very little bitching about typos. That I've noticed anyway.
> And so far nobody has busted my chops about my overuse of elipses.
>
> Someone will point out that I have misspelled spelling and grammar
> above and that I used loose instead of lose. The loose/lose item is
> enough to send spasms down some people's backs disenabling them from
> continuing to read a post through its entirety. Sometimes the group is
> about short attention spans. (For those of you on the edge of spasms,
> I throw a 'how can I get more toned' in your general direction.)
>
> I make no claims getting torqued out of shape about grammar, spelling,
> loose/lose or toning is bad. Letting it affect you to the point that
> you can't make your way through the rest of the post before replying
> is a tad insane. [(Sometimes the group is about covering your ass. You
> never really know how big some of these people may be -- how close
> they may live to you -- or about their ability to track you down. (And
> thus, the people who read through the entire post know I didn't mean
> them ... and those that didn't ... well.)]
>
> The group is always entertaining. Even the trolls are of a higher
> grade here.
>
You can talk all yoiu want about how folks being concerned about proper use
of terms is neurotic.

But when it comes to changeing the body, a little dose of reality is
appropriate. And using terms that are false or used extensively in
advertising is a sure sign that you are dealing with a moron. And the last
thing a moron needs is some dumbed down explanation that embraces the
moron's fantasies and misinformation.

I am one of those guys who get upset with the word tone. The primary reason
why is that it is rarely used in any kind of intelligent context. And the
usual emotional response to that is that all kinds of morons use it,
therefore it is somehow or another intelligent. I can ask for a definition
of that dreaded term to a group of these regular folks and get all kinds of
totally uninformed and ignorant answers.

The problem is that the ignorance never changes. Keep using the term tone
and you can retain your ignorance forever. The same folks who use this term
also use current advertising propaganda and general myths as facts in their
reasoning. And they want me to confirm it in some fashion. Prove their
stupididy/ignorance correct, or at least confirm it, AND then help them. I
won't do it.

Why don't we just talk about what is needed or desired in the body? Tone, at
best, is a term that is so nonspecific, that it in no way addresses the
actual concepts or processes needed to make any kind of meaningful physical
change. If you want to help folks with baby talk, be my guest. But the
likelyhood of truly assisting somebody who speaks in popular vernacular,
when they SHOULD be conversing in biological or physiological terms, is not
very high.

Do what you want. When I hear the word tone as it is used commonly, I know
that a moron is talking. And I can't imagine why somebody would want to
create the kind of impression. Do you drop medical terms when talking to a
doc? Do you pretend to be a mechanic when your car is bing worked on? Do
you look over the shoulder of tradesman and criticize their work? Do you
purposely [iss off folks who you want to help you by PRETENDING to know more
than you do?

It seems to me to me to be a sign of respect that you don't bring that
garbage in the door when you want to talk about making a meaningful physical
change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
actual biological or physiologic process?

I am not convinced.

And there is an incredible difference between lose and loose. And typos or
selling errors do not begin to explain what is seen here. Again, we are
dealing with folk's big reluctance of dealing with, that dreaded word, FAT.

Lee Michaels

John HUDSON
November 30th 04, 07:10 PM
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:53:58 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"DHW" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:
>>
>> >On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is this group about weights or what?
>> >
>> >It all depends on when you arrive.
>> >
>> I forgot to mention ...
>>
>> Sometimes the group is about speling and grammer. The arguments that
>> come from that are enough to make one loose one's mind.
>>
>> There is very little bitching about typos. That I've noticed anyway.
>> And so far nobody has busted my chops about my overuse of elipses.
>>
>> Someone will point out that I have misspelled spelling and grammar
>> above and that I used loose instead of lose. The loose/lose item is
>> enough to send spasms down some people's backs disenabling them from
>> continuing to read a post through its entirety. Sometimes the group is
>> about short attention spans. (For those of you on the edge of spasms,
>> I throw a 'how can I get more toned' in your general direction.)
>>
>> I make no claims getting torqued out of shape about grammar, spelling,
>> loose/lose or toning is bad. Letting it affect you to the point that
>> you can't make your way through the rest of the post before replying
>> is a tad insane. [(Sometimes the group is about covering your ass. You
>> never really know how big some of these people may be -- how close
>> they may live to you -- or about their ability to track you down. (And
>> thus, the people who read through the entire post know I didn't mean
>> them ... and those that didn't ... well.)]
>>
>> The group is always entertaining. Even the trolls are of a higher
>> grade here.
>>
>You can talk all yoiu want about how folks being concerned about proper use
>of terms is neurotic.
>
>But when it comes to changeing the body, a little dose of reality is
>appropriate. And using terms that are false or used extensively in
>advertising is a sure sign that you are dealing with a moron. And the last
>thing a moron needs is some dumbed down explanation that embraces the
>moron's fantasies and misinformation.
>
>I am one of those guys who get upset with the word tone. The primary reason
>why is that it is rarely used in any kind of intelligent context. And the
>usual emotional response to that is that all kinds of morons use it,
>therefore it is somehow or another intelligent. I can ask for a definition
>of that dreaded term to a group of these regular folks and get all kinds of
>totally uninformed and ignorant answers.
>
>The problem is that the ignorance never changes. Keep using the term tone
>and you can retain your ignorance forever. The same folks who use this term
>also use current advertising propaganda and general myths as facts in their
>reasoning. And they want me to confirm it in some fashion. Prove their
>stupididy/ignorance correct, or at least confirm it, AND then help them. I
>won't do it.
>
>Why don't we just talk about what is needed or desired in the body? Tone, at
>best, is a term that is so nonspecific, that it in no way addresses the
>actual concepts or processes needed to make any kind of meaningful physical
>change. If you want to help folks with baby talk, be my guest. But the
>likelyhood of truly assisting somebody who speaks in popular vernacular,
>when they SHOULD be conversing in biological or physiological terms, is not
>very high.
>
>Do what you want. When I hear the word tone as it is used commonly, I know
>that a moron is talking. And I can't imagine why somebody would want to
>create the kind of impression. Do you drop medical terms when talking to a
>doc? Do you pretend to be a mechanic when your car is bing worked on? Do
>you look over the shoulder of tradesman and criticize their work? Do you
>purposely [iss off folks who you want to help you by PRETENDING to know more
>than you do?
>
>It seems to me to me to be a sign of respect that you don't bring that
>garbage in the door when you want to talk about making a meaningful physical
>change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
>actual biological or physiologic process?
>
>I am not convinced.
>
>And there is an incredible difference between lose and loose. And typos or
>selling errors do not begin to explain what is seen here. Again, we are
>dealing with folk's big reluctance of dealing with, that dreaded word, FAT.
>
>Lee Michaels

The delicious irony here Lee is that you have no idea what a prick you
are, or how utterly 'prickish' you present yourself when attempting to
patronise someone who is streets ahead of you in the intelligence
stakes - which is just about everyone who posts here!! ;o)

John Hudson
www.fitnwell.net

bc
November 30th 04, 07:45 PM
"Pat Styles" > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Adam PR Taylor" > wrote in message
> om...
> > DHW > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > [snip summary of mutual hatred politicain daughters, political
> > gloating, dogs and guns, Usenet etiquette, Bowflex, and Elvis]
> >
> >> Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
> >> weightlifting and nutrition.
> >
> >
> > U-huh.
> >
> > There is something about lifting heavy objects for no other purpose
> > than the satisfaction that comes from doing so, or simply looking
> > good, that attracts the ego-maniacs, freaks, OCD sufferers, or
> > one-eyed absolutists.
> >
> > Given the above, it is not really surprising that a comment made will
> > result in a verbal war of attrition, which I for one often find quite
> > enlightening and educational (or perhaps that is just the academic in
> > me?) unless it degenerates into mindless name-calling and straw-man
> > assassination.
> >
> > As a hunter and firearms enthusiest myself, I have learned much of the
> > US and EU hunting and firearms laws. Similar commenst could be had
> > WRT dogs. The research and accidental readings I found associated
> > with my recent attempted enlightenment of John Hanson after his
> > unsupported disparaging comments about the NZ military was actually
> > quite refreashing and enjoyable: I learnt something about this small
> > nations history, and an apprecaition for how it's identity was formed
> > within living memory.
>
> I'm glad you got something useful out of it, because I couldn't figure out why
> you were arguing with that idiot.
> ps

I ignored that thread, but arguing with Hudson has been refreshing
occasionally for me too. Mostly because it reminds me why I shouldn't
argue with people like him.

- bc

Tony
November 30th 04, 10:35 PM
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:53:58 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"DHW" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:
>>
>> >On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Is this group about weights or what?
>> >
>> >It all depends on when you arrive.
>> >
>> I forgot to mention ...
>>
>> Sometimes the group is about speling and grammer. The arguments that
>> come from that are enough to make one loose one's mind.
>>
>> There is very little bitching about typos. That I've noticed anyway.
>> And so far nobody has busted my chops about my overuse of elipses.
>>
>> Someone will point out that I have misspelled spelling and grammar
>> above and that I used loose instead of lose. The loose/lose item is
>> enough to send spasms down some people's backs disenabling them from
>> continuing to read a post through its entirety. Sometimes the group is
>> about short attention spans. (For those of you on the edge of spasms,
>> I throw a 'how can I get more toned' in your general direction.)
>>
>> I make no claims getting torqued out of shape about grammar, spelling,
>> loose/lose or toning is bad. Letting it affect you to the point that
>> you can't make your way through the rest of the post before replying
>> is a tad insane. [(Sometimes the group is about covering your ass. You
>> never really know how big some of these people may be -- how close
>> they may live to you -- or about their ability to track you down. (And
>> thus, the people who read through the entire post know I didn't mean
>> them ... and those that didn't ... well.)]
>>
>> The group is always entertaining. Even the trolls are of a higher
>> grade here.
>>
>You can talk all yoiu want about how folks being concerned about proper use
>of terms is neurotic.
>
>It seems to me to me to be a sign of respect that you don't bring that
>garbage in the door when you want to talk about making a meaningful physical
>change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
>actual biological or physiologic process?
>
Correcting them is fine but using incorrect terms doesn't make him/her a
moron. They're simply uneducated or un-initiated to the proper
terminology. This is especially true of newbies who come here and ask
for advice. If they knew the right words to use, what they mean they
probably wouldn't be here asking at all. They don't deserve to be
ridiculed, labeled "moron" and driven away. We were ALL new & ignorant
of the facts once. No one here was born holding a barbell .

"Tone" is very widely used. It's not going away. People will always use
it. No, it's not a real thing or process but the appearance of ones body
that they may call toned is real and achievable. They just need to be
told what it actually means.

I have my own pet peves WRT how the population is getting dumber &
dumber all the time ( I work with the public all day, I see an appalling
display of ignorance & stupidity at least once a day), and also how
dieting and exercise is marketed. I'm not preaching acceptance of or
enabling wrong thinking, but there isn't any point in getting uncool &
angry about it. *most* people who "bring that garbage in the door" don't
do so intentionally. It has nothing to do with respect for the
'processes' or the groups regulars.
Now, people holding on to such bull**** after being corrected is another
thing. Trolls and self proclaimed experts who persist in spouting BS
should be dealt with.

Bob Mann
December 1st 04, 04:29 AM
On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:01:51 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
>wrote:
>
>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>
>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>>
>>> This is a group about "or what."
>>>
>>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>>
>>> -S-
>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>>not an excuse.
>
>The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
>posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
>dare I say very BORING?!!
>
>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

You haven't been around long enough to be able to say that.
The people Rob is talking about stopped posting long before you
started.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Tifosi Bob
December 1st 04, 05:26 AM
"Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
...
> Tifosi Bob wrote:
> > "zeroblank" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> Is this group about weights or what?
> >
> > the election is over...
> >
> > <insert a ****ing moronic republican dumb-****
> > head-up-his-disease-infested-ass comment>
> >
> > so I don't post here anymore.
> >
> > Bob
>
> Finally.
> --
> -Larry

Hey Larry,

Ontario is now producing more vehicles than Michigan, look it up on google!

btw My Husky Oil stock HSE-T is up 47% ytd!! Keep buying Navigators and
full-size pick-ups.
http://investdb.theglobeandmail.com/invest/investSQL/gx.stock_rep?pi_mode=COMPANY&pi_type=BASIC&pi_sort_col=SYMBOL_EXCHANGE&pi_sort_order=ASC&pi_hit_cou
nt=1&pi_qtime=200412010018300003&pi_currency=&pi_max_sortval=&pi_min_sortval
=&pi_sub_sortval=&pi_cur_offset=1&pi_param_1=Husky+Energy&pi_param_3=EXACT

David
December 1st 04, 05:46 AM
"Lee Michaels" whined and babbled
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s02...
>
> "DHW" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:
> >
> > >On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>Is this group about weights or what?
> > >
> > >It all depends on when you arrive.
> > >
> > I forgot to mention ...
> >
> > Sometimes the group is about speling and grammer. The arguments that
> > come from that are enough to make one loose one's mind.
> >
> > There is very little bitching about typos. That I've noticed anyway.
> > And so far nobody has busted my chops about my overuse of elipses.
> >
> > Someone will point out that I have misspelled spelling and grammar
> > above and that I used loose instead of lose. The loose/lose item is
> > enough to send spasms down some people's backs disenabling them from
> > continuing to read a post through its entirety. Sometimes the group is
> > about short attention spans. (For those of you on the edge of spasms,
> > I throw a 'how can I get more toned' in your general direction.)
> >
> > I make no claims getting torqued out of shape about grammar, spelling,
> > loose/lose or toning is bad. Letting it affect you to the point that
> > you can't make your way through the rest of the post before replying
> > is a tad insane. [(Sometimes the group is about covering your ass. You
> > never really know how big some of these people may be -- how close
> > they may live to you -- or about their ability to track you down. (And
> > thus, the people who read through the entire post know I didn't mean
> > them ... and those that didn't ... well.)]
> >
> > The group is always entertaining. Even the trolls are of a higher
> > grade here.
> >
> You can talk all yoiu want about how folks being concerned about proper
use
> of terms is neurotic.
>
> But when it comes to changeing the body, a little dose of reality is
> appropriate. And using terms that are false or used extensively in
> advertising is a sure sign that you are dealing with a moron. And the last
> thing a moron needs is some dumbed down explanation that embraces the
> moron's fantasies and misinformation.
>
> I am one of those guys who get upset with the word tone. The primary
reason
> why is that it is rarely used in any kind of intelligent context. And the
> usual emotional response to that is that all kinds of morons use it,
> therefore it is somehow or another intelligent. I can ask for a definition
> of that dreaded term to a group of these regular folks and get all kinds
of
> totally uninformed and ignorant answers.
>
> The problem is that the ignorance never changes. Keep using the term tone
> and you can retain your ignorance forever. The same folks who use this
term
> also use current advertising propaganda and general myths as facts in
their
> reasoning. And they want me to confirm it in some fashion. Prove their
> stupididy/ignorance correct, or at least confirm it, AND then help them.
I
> won't do it.
>
> Why don't we just talk about what is needed or desired in the body? Tone,
at
> best, is a term that is so nonspecific, that it in no way addresses the
> actual concepts or processes needed to make any kind of meaningful
physical
> change. If you want to help folks with baby talk, be my guest. But the
> likelyhood of truly assisting somebody who speaks in popular vernacular,
> when they SHOULD be conversing in biological or physiological terms, is
not
> very high.
>
> Do what you want. When I hear the word tone as it is used commonly, I know
> that a moron is talking. And I can't imagine why somebody would want to
> create the kind of impression. Do you drop medical terms when talking to
a
> doc? Do you pretend to be a mechanic when your car is bing worked on? Do
> you look over the shoulder of tradesman and criticize their work? Do you
> purposely [iss off folks who you want to help you by PRETENDING to know
more
> than you do?
>
> It seems to me to me to be a sign of respect that you don't bring that
> garbage in the door when you want to talk about making a meaningful
physical
> change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
> actual biological or physiologic process?
>
> I am not convinced.
>
> And there is an incredible difference between lose and loose. And typos or
> selling errors do not begin to explain what is seen here. Again, we are
> dealing with folk's big reluctance of dealing with, that dreaded word,
FAT.
>
> Lee Michaels
>
> Give it a rest you dumb ****. No one gives a crap about what you think

Pat Styles
December 1st 04, 03:01 PM
"bc" > wrote in message
om...
> "Pat Styles" > wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Adam PR Taylor" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > DHW > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >
>> > [snip summary of mutual hatred politicain daughters, political
>> > gloating, dogs and guns, Usenet etiquette, Bowflex, and Elvis]
>> >
>> >> Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
>> >> weightlifting and nutrition.
>> >
>> >
>> > U-huh.
>> >
>> > There is something about lifting heavy objects for no other purpose
>> > than the satisfaction that comes from doing so, or simply looking
>> > good, that attracts the ego-maniacs, freaks, OCD sufferers, or
>> > one-eyed absolutists.
>> >
>> > Given the above, it is not really surprising that a comment made will
>> > result in a verbal war of attrition, which I for one often find quite
>> > enlightening and educational (or perhaps that is just the academic in
>> > me?) unless it degenerates into mindless name-calling and straw-man
>> > assassination.
>> >
>> > As a hunter and firearms enthusiest myself, I have learned much of the
>> > US and EU hunting and firearms laws. Similar commenst could be had
>> > WRT dogs. The research and accidental readings I found associated
>> > with my recent attempted enlightenment of John Hanson after his
>> > unsupported disparaging comments about the NZ military was actually
>> > quite refreashing and enjoyable: I learnt something about this small
>> > nations history, and an apprecaition for how it's identity was formed
>> > within living memory.
>>
>> I'm glad you got something useful out of it, because I couldn't figure out
>> why
>> you were arguing with that idiot.
>> ps
>
> I ignored that thread, but arguing with Hudson has been refreshing
> occasionally for me too. Mostly because it reminds me why I shouldn't
> argue with people like him.
>
> - bc

Adam was actually arguing with Hanson, not Hudson, but the principle you
articulated is the same. :-)
ps

John HUDSON
December 1st 04, 04:56 PM
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:22 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:01:51 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>
>>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>>> om...
>>>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>>>
>>>> This is a group about "or what."
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>>>
>>>> -S-
>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>
>>>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>>>not an excuse.
>>
>>The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
>>posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
>>dare I say very BORING?!!
>>
>>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>
>You haven't been around long enough to be able to say that.
>The people Rob is talking about stopped posting long before you
>started.

That is such a juvenile and banal riposte Bob that I can hardly
believe you posted it.

We aren't a bunch of schoolchildren who have to acknowledge some kind
of hierarchy based on seniority. This isn't a case of juniors having
to be craven to 6th formers, university freshmen having to bow before
graduates and final year students or novitiate Masons being taught to
be cautious!!

This Bob, is a USENET NEWSGROUP with which I have been associated long
enough for the above comments to be perfectly valid!! Four and a half
years is a long time in Usenet, and I have observed how the dynamics
have changed dramatically in that time, and even more so over the past
two years.

My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
;o)

John HUDSON
December 1st 04, 05:01 PM
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:46:25 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>"Lee Michaels" whined and babbled
>"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>news:[email protected]_s02...
>>
>> "DHW" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 23:43:40 -0500, DHW > wrote:
>> >
>> > >On 28 Nov 2004 06:51:40 -0800, (zeroblank)
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>Is this group about weights or what?
>> > >
>> > >It all depends on when you arrive.
>> > >
>> > I forgot to mention ...
>> >
>> > Sometimes the group is about speling and grammer. The arguments that
>> > come from that are enough to make one loose one's mind.
>> >
>> > There is very little bitching about typos. That I've noticed anyway.
>> > And so far nobody has busted my chops about my overuse of elipses.
>> >
>> > Someone will point out that I have misspelled spelling and grammar
>> > above and that I used loose instead of lose. The loose/lose item is
>> > enough to send spasms down some people's backs disenabling them from
>> > continuing to read a post through its entirety. Sometimes the group is
>> > about short attention spans. (For those of you on the edge of spasms,
>> > I throw a 'how can I get more toned' in your general direction.)
>> >
>> > I make no claims getting torqued out of shape about grammar, spelling,
>> > loose/lose or toning is bad. Letting it affect you to the point that
>> > you can't make your way through the rest of the post before replying
>> > is a tad insane. [(Sometimes the group is about covering your ass. You
>> > never really know how big some of these people may be -- how close
>> > they may live to you -- or about their ability to track you down. (And
>> > thus, the people who read through the entire post know I didn't mean
>> > them ... and those that didn't ... well.)]
>> >
>> > The group is always entertaining. Even the trolls are of a higher
>> > grade here.
>> >
>> You can talk all yoiu want about how folks being concerned about proper
>use
>> of terms is neurotic.
>>
>> But when it comes to changeing the body, a little dose of reality is
>> appropriate. And using terms that are false or used extensively in
>> advertising is a sure sign that you are dealing with a moron. And the last
>> thing a moron needs is some dumbed down explanation that embraces the
>> moron's fantasies and misinformation.
>>
>> I am one of those guys who get upset with the word tone. The primary
>reason
>> why is that it is rarely used in any kind of intelligent context. And the
>> usual emotional response to that is that all kinds of morons use it,
>> therefore it is somehow or another intelligent. I can ask for a definition
>> of that dreaded term to a group of these regular folks and get all kinds
>of
>> totally uninformed and ignorant answers.
>>
>> The problem is that the ignorance never changes. Keep using the term tone
>> and you can retain your ignorance forever. The same folks who use this
>term
>> also use current advertising propaganda and general myths as facts in
>their
>> reasoning. And they want me to confirm it in some fashion. Prove their
>> stupididy/ignorance correct, or at least confirm it, AND then help them.
>I
>> won't do it.
>>
>> Why don't we just talk about what is needed or desired in the body? Tone,
>at
>> best, is a term that is so nonspecific, that it in no way addresses the
>> actual concepts or processes needed to make any kind of meaningful
>physical
>> change. If you want to help folks with baby talk, be my guest. But the
>> likelyhood of truly assisting somebody who speaks in popular vernacular,
>> when they SHOULD be conversing in biological or physiological terms, is
>not
>> very high.
>>
>> Do what you want. When I hear the word tone as it is used commonly, I know
>> that a moron is talking. And I can't imagine why somebody would want to
>> create the kind of impression. Do you drop medical terms when talking to
>a
>> doc? Do you pretend to be a mechanic when your car is bing worked on? Do
>> you look over the shoulder of tradesman and criticize their work? Do you
>> purposely [iss off folks who you want to help you by PRETENDING to know
>more
>> than you do?
>>
>> It seems to me to me to be a sign of respect that you don't bring that
>> garbage in the door when you want to talk about making a meaningful
>physical
>> change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
>> actual biological or physiologic process?
>>
>> I am not convinced.
>>
>> And there is an incredible difference between lose and loose. And typos or
>> selling errors do not begin to explain what is seen here. Again, we are
>> dealing with folk's big reluctance of dealing with, that dreaded word,
>FAT.
>>
>> Lee Michaels
>>
>> Give it a rest you dumb ****. No one gives a crap about what you think

I applaud your pith return to the fray David; the group needs more
fire in its belly!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 1st 04, 05:11 PM
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 07:01:54 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"bc" > wrote in message
om...
>> "Pat Styles" > wrote in message
>> news:<[email protected]>...
>>> "Adam PR Taylor" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>> > DHW > wrote in message
>>> > >...
>>> >
>>> > [snip summary of mutual hatred politicain daughters, political
>>> > gloating, dogs and guns, Usenet etiquette, Bowflex, and Elvis]
>>> >
>>> >> Periodically some pretty useful information will show up about
>>> >> weightlifting and nutrition.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > U-huh.
>>> >
>>> > There is something about lifting heavy objects for no other purpose
>>> > than the satisfaction that comes from doing so, or simply looking
>>> > good, that attracts the ego-maniacs, freaks, OCD sufferers, or
>>> > one-eyed absolutists.
>>> >
>>> > Given the above, it is not really surprising that a comment made will
>>> > result in a verbal war of attrition, which I for one often find quite
>>> > enlightening and educational (or perhaps that is just the academic in
>>> > me?) unless it degenerates into mindless name-calling and straw-man
>>> > assassination.
>>> >
>>> > As a hunter and firearms enthusiest myself, I have learned much of the
>>> > US and EU hunting and firearms laws. Similar commenst could be had
>>> > WRT dogs. The research and accidental readings I found associated
>>> > with my recent attempted enlightenment of John Hanson after his
>>> > unsupported disparaging comments about the NZ military was actually
>>> > quite refreashing and enjoyable: I learnt something about this small
>>> > nations history, and an apprecaition for how it's identity was formed
>>> > within living memory.
>>>
>>> I'm glad you got something useful out of it, because I couldn't figure out
>>> why
>>> you were arguing with that idiot.
>>> ps
>>
>> I ignored that thread, but arguing with Hudson has been refreshing
>> occasionally for me too. Mostly because it reminds me why I shouldn't
>> argue with people like him.
>>
>> - bc
>
>Adam was actually arguing with Hanson, not Hudson, but the principle you
>articulated is the same. :-)

So you find arguing with me is occasionally refreshing do you Pat?

I'll post another .jpeg of your 'chicken legs' in time for Laughlin if
you carry on being gratuitously rude you long streak of ****!! ;o)

David
December 1st 04, 06:49 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:46:25 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >"Lee Michaels" whined and babbled
> >"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]_s02...
> >>
> >> "DHW" > wrote in message

[......]

>> change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
> >> actual biological or physiologic process?
> >>
> >> I am not convinced.
> >>
> >> And there is an incredible difference between lose and loose. And typos
or
> >> selling errors do not begin to explain what is seen here. Again, we are
> >> dealing with folk's big reluctance of dealing with, that dreaded word,
> >FAT.
> >>
> >> Lee Michaels
> >>
>> Give it a rest you dumb ****. No one gives a crap about what you think
>
> I applaud your pith return to the fray David; the group needs more
> fire in its belly!! ;o)

Hey John . . . nice to see ya! (was thinking of nominating Mr Angry for
the new award - "the Jerry Springer Award for Absolute Crap")

John HUDSON
December 1st 04, 07:45 PM
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:49:10 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 05:46:25 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Lee Michaels" whined and babbled
>> >"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]_s02...
>> >>
>> >> "DHW" > wrote in message
>
>[......]
>
>>> change. Do people really think that the tone word really communicates an
>> >> actual biological or physiologic process?
>> >>
>> >> I am not convinced.
>> >>
>> >> And there is an incredible difference between lose and loose. And typos
>or
>> >> selling errors do not begin to explain what is seen here. Again, we are
>> >> dealing with folk's big reluctance of dealing with, that dreaded word,
>> >FAT.
>> >>
>> >> Lee Michaels
>> >>
> >> Give it a rest you dumb ****. No one gives a crap about what you think
>>
>> I applaud your pith return to the fray David; the group needs more
>> fire in its belly!! ;o)
>
> Hey John . . . nice to see ya! (was thinking of nominating Mr Angry for
>the new award - "the Jerry Springer Award for Absolute Crap")

Seconded!! ;o)

Bob Mann
December 2nd 04, 12:53 AM
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:22 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:01:51 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>>>> om...
>>>>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a group about "or what."
>>>>>
>>>>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>>>>
>>>>> -S-
>>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>>
>>>>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>>>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>>>>not an excuse.
>>>
>>>The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
>>>posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
>>>dare I say very BORING?!!
>>>
>>>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>>
>>You haven't been around long enough to be able to say that.
>>The people Rob is talking about stopped posting long before you
>>started.
>
>That is such a juvenile and banal riposte Bob that I can hardly
>believe you posted it.

It isn't a riposte. Just a statement of fact.
You were never posting here when the people Rob is talking about were
posting here.
It was a far different place then.
>
>We aren't a bunch of schoolchildren who have to acknowledge some kind
>of hierarchy based on seniority. This isn't a case of juniors having
>to be craven to 6th formers, university freshmen having to bow before
>graduates and final year students or novitiate Masons being taught to
>be cautious!!

Don't try to read into what I said anything but exactly what I said.
Hierarchy has nothing to do with it.
The good contributors have gone and so have most of the people who so
called "****ed it up".
>
>This Bob, is a USENET NEWSGROUP with which I have been associated long
>enough for the above comments to be perfectly valid!! Four and a half
>years is a long time in Usenet, and I have observed how the dynamics
>have changed dramatically in that time, and even more so over the past
>two years.

Maybe 4.5 years is a long time but there are a few who have been
posting here for over 10 years. Most who were here 10 years ago aren't
here now.
Many who were here 5 years ago aren't here now.
>
>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>;o)

Self aggrandizing maybe though?
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Larry Hodges
December 2nd 04, 03:06 AM
Tifosi Bob wrote:
> "Larry Hodges" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tifosi Bob wrote:
>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>> Is this group about weights or what?
>>>
>>> the election is over...
>>>
>>> <insert a ****ing moronic republican dumb-****
>>> head-up-his-disease-infested-ass comment>
>>>
>>> so I don't post here anymore.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> Finally.
>> --
>> -Larry
>
> Hey Larry,
>
> Ontario is now producing more vehicles than Michigan, look it up on
> google!
>
> btw My Husky Oil stock HSE-T is up 47% ytd!! Keep buying Navigators
> and full-size pick-ups.
> http://investdb.theglobeandmail.com/invest/investSQL/gx.stock_rep?pi_mode=COMPANY&pi_type=BASIC&pi_sort_col=SYMBOL_EXCHANGE&pi_sort_order=ASC&pi_hit_cou
> nt=1&pi_qtime=200412010018300003&pi_currency=&pi_max_sortval=&pi_min_sortval
> =&pi_sub_sortval=&pi_cur_offset=1&pi_param_1=Husky+Energy&pi_param_3=EXACT

I drive a Toyota 4Runner.
--
-Larry
Canada...leading the world in being just north of the United States.

John HUDSON
December 2nd 04, 08:55 AM
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:53:53 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:22 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:01:51 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>>>>> om...
>>>>>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a group about "or what."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -S-
>>>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>>>
>>>>>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>>>>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>>>>>not an excuse.
>>>>
>>>>The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
>>>>posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
>>>>dare I say very BORING?!!
>>>>
>>>>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>>>
>>>You haven't been around long enough to be able to say that.
>>>The people Rob is talking about stopped posting long before you
>>>started.
>>
>>That is such a juvenile and banal riposte Bob that I can hardly
>>believe you posted it.
>
>It isn't a riposte. Just a statement of fact.

It was a competitive response which makes it a riposte!!

>You were never posting here when the people Rob is talking about were
>posting here.
>It was a far different place then.

Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)

>>
>>We aren't a bunch of schoolchildren who have to acknowledge some kind
>>of hierarchy based on seniority. This isn't a case of juniors having
>>to be craven to 6th formers, university freshmen having to bow before
>>graduates and final year students or novitiate Masons being taught to
>>be cautious!!
>
>Don't try to read into what I said anything but exactly what I said.
>Hierarchy has nothing to do with it.
>The good contributors have gone and so have most of the people who so
>called "****ed it up".

That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
have raised "boring" to new levels!!

>>
>>This Bob, is a USENET NEWSGROUP with which I have been associated long
>>enough for the above comments to be perfectly valid!! Four and a half
>>years is a long time in Usenet, and I have observed how the dynamics
>>have changed dramatically in that time, and even more so over the past
>>two years.
>
>Maybe 4.5 years is a long time but there are a few who have been
>posting here for over 10 years. Most who were here 10 years ago aren't
>here now.

I know the type, who were 'cat whiskering' when the Internet was steam
driven!! ;o)

>Many who were here 5 years ago aren't here now.

Mostly driven away by those described above, who are also responsible
for discouraging 'new blood' to revitalise a flagging forum!!

>>
>>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>>;o)
>
>Self aggrandizing maybe though?

I have little to be modest about Bob!! ;o)

Bob Mann
December 2nd 04, 11:55 PM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:53:53 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:22 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:01:51 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> om...
>>>>>>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a group about "or what."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -S-
>>>>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>>>>>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>>>>>>not an excuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
>>>>>posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
>>>>>dare I say very BORING?!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>>>>
>>>>You haven't been around long enough to be able to say that.
>>>>The people Rob is talking about stopped posting long before you
>>>>started.
>>>
>>>That is such a juvenile and banal riposte Bob that I can hardly
>>>believe you posted it.
>>
>>It isn't a riposte. Just a statement of fact.
>
>It was a competitive response which makes it a riposte!!

You have a strange idea of what constitutes competitive.
I feel no need to compete with anyone here.
I was just pounting out that you lacked the longevity to know what you
thought you knew.
Not that I am any better than you for having been around here longer.
I'm better than you for so many other reasons ;-P~~~
>
>>You were never posting here when the people Rob is talking about were
>>posting here.
>>It was a far different place then.
>
>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)

Frankly, although I have never much been into the bodybuilding, the
personalities and exchanges were much mor entertaining many years ago.
When I started posting here I wasn't into powerlifting either. Just
lifting for the sake of lifting, looking and feeling better and
stronger.
>
>>>
>>>We aren't a bunch of schoolchildren who have to acknowledge some kind
>>>of hierarchy based on seniority. This isn't a case of juniors having
>>>to be craven to 6th formers, university freshmen having to bow before
>>>graduates and final year students or novitiate Masons being taught to
>>>be cautious!!
>>
>>Don't try to read into what I said anything but exactly what I said.
>>Hierarchy has nothing to do with it.
>>The good contributors have gone and so have most of the people who so
>>called "****ed it up".
>
>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>have raised "boring" to new levels!!

That's just it.
You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
others most of whom you never knew.
You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
from those guys.
Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
more, Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
topic.
Krista is about the only one left who does.
I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
arguing.
Until it started getting bitter.

>
>>>
>>>This Bob, is a USENET NEWSGROUP with which I have been associated long
>>>enough for the above comments to be perfectly valid!! Four and a half
>>>years is a long time in Usenet, and I have observed how the dynamics
>>>have changed dramatically in that time, and even more so over the past
>>>two years.
>>
>>Maybe 4.5 years is a long time but there are a few who have been
>>posting here for over 10 years. Most who were here 10 years ago aren't
>>here now.
>
>I know the type, who were 'cat whiskering' when the Internet was steam
>driven!! ;o)
>
>>Many who were here 5 years ago aren't here now.
>
>Mostly driven away by those described above, who are also responsible
>for discouraging 'new blood' to revitalise a flagging forum!!

It's as busy as it ever was.
Just not as interesting these days.
Most of the driving away (Of the real old timers) was done by a few
who aren't here any longer themselves.
>
>>>
>>>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>>>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>>>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>>>;o)
>>
>>Self aggrandizing maybe though?
>
>I have little to be modest about Bob!! ;o)

Doesn't mean you shouldn't give it an effort.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 3rd 04, 12:11 AM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)

****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
etc.

Lots of people.
Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
talk.
It's all been said.

I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
Not many still here are there?
That's the crowd Rob misses.
Even the trolls were more fun.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

aj
December 3rd 04, 12:37 AM
On 2004-12-03, Bob Mann > wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
> wrote:
>
>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>
> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
> etc.
>
> Lots of people.
> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
> talk.
> It's all been said.
>
> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
> Not many still here are there?
> That's the crowd Rob misses.
> Even the trolls were more fun.

SGT ROBO.

--
-aj

aj
December 3rd 04, 12:39 AM
On 2004-12-03, aj > wrote:
> On 2004-12-03, Bob Mann > wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> etc.
>>
>> Lots of people.
>> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>> talk.
>> It's all been said.
>>
>> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>> Not many still here are there?
>> That's the crowd Rob misses.
>> Even the trolls were more fun.
>
> SGT ROBO.

Pus Bag.

--
-aj

John HUDSON
December 3rd 04, 12:40 AM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:55:06 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:53:53 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 22:29:22 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:01:51 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:08:13 -0700, Robert Schuh >
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Steve Freides wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "zeroblank" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> om...
>>>>>>>> > Is this group about weights or what?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a group about "or what."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or maybe it's about "or what?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -S-
>>>>>>>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>MFW stopped being about MFW ages ago. Why do you think 99% of the people
>>>>>>>who made this group no longer post here? Only Duchaine died, so that is
>>>>>>>not an excuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The people responsible for ****ing the group up are in the main still
>>>>>>posting here, but they are much more subdued and circumspect - and
>>>>>>dare I say very BORING?!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
>>>>>
>>>>>You haven't been around long enough to be able to say that.
>>>>>The people Rob is talking about stopped posting long before you
>>>>>started.
>>>>
>>>>That is such a juvenile and banal riposte Bob that I can hardly
>>>>believe you posted it.
>>>
>>>It isn't a riposte. Just a statement of fact.
>>
>>It was a competitive response which makes it a riposte!!
>
>You have a strange idea of what constitutes competitive.
>I feel no need to compete with anyone here.
>I was just pounting out that you lacked the longevity to know what you
>thought you knew.

I know that which I know!! ;o)

>Not that I am any better than you for having been around here longer.
>I'm better than you for so many other reasons ;-P~~~

That's just bragging without any basis for so doing Bob, and not
something that can easily be subjectively proven - and who really
cares?

>>
>>>You were never posting here when the people Rob is talking about were
>>>posting here.
>>>It was a far different place then.
>>
>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>
>Frankly, although I have never much been into the bodybuilding, the
>personalities and exchanges were much mor entertaining many years ago.
>When I started posting here I wasn't into powerlifting either. Just
>lifting for the sake of lifting, looking and feeling better and
>stronger.
>>
>>>>
>>>>We aren't a bunch of schoolchildren who have to acknowledge some kind
>>>>of hierarchy based on seniority. This isn't a case of juniors having
>>>>to be craven to 6th formers, university freshmen having to bow before
>>>>graduates and final year students or novitiate Masons being taught to
>>>>be cautious!!
>>>
>>>Don't try to read into what I said anything but exactly what I said.
>>>Hierarchy has nothing to do with it.
>>>The good contributors have gone and so have most of the people who so
>>>called "****ed it up".
>>
>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>
>That's just it.

You are missing the point Bob; you are delving back into the dim and
distant past of happier days. I am doing the same only with a more
recent memory span. Both are relevant only I have no experience of the
days about which you speak.

I do know it was gloriously and competitively funny when I first
arrived here.

>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>others most of whom you never knew.
>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>from those guys.
>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>more, Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>topic.
>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>arguing.
>Until it started getting bitter.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>This Bob, is a USENET NEWSGROUP with which I have been associated long
>>>>enough for the above comments to be perfectly valid!! Four and a half
>>>>years is a long time in Usenet, and I have observed how the dynamics
>>>>have changed dramatically in that time, and even more so over the past
>>>>two years.
>>>
>>>Maybe 4.5 years is a long time but there are a few who have been
>>>posting here for over 10 years. Most who were here 10 years ago aren't
>>>here now.
>>
>>I know the type, who were 'cat whiskering' when the Internet was steam
>>driven!! ;o)
>>
>>>Many who were here 5 years ago aren't here now.
>>
>>Mostly driven away by those described above, who are also responsible
>>for discouraging 'new blood' to revitalise a flagging forum!!
>
>It's as busy as it ever was.
>Just not as interesting these days.

That really was my point!!

>Most of the driving away (Of the real old timers) was done by a few
>who aren't here any longer themselves.

Most of the "driving away" in my time has been done by those still
posting!!

>>
>>>>
>>>>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>>>>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>>>>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>>>>;o)
>>>
>>>Self aggrandizing maybe though?
>>
>>I have little to be modest about Bob!! ;o)
>
>Doesn't mean you shouldn't give it an effort.

I'll try just for you Bob!! ;o)

Bugger me, it's Friday already; have a great weekend - you know I
will!! ;o)

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
December 3rd 04, 12:41 AM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>
>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>etc.
>
>Lots of people.
>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>talk.
>It's all been said.
>
>I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>Not many still here are there?
>That's the crowd Rob misses.
>Even the trolls were more fun.

That's the old "it wasn't like it in my day" syndrome!! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!

John M. Williams
December 3rd 04, 04:42 AM
Bob Mann > wrote:

> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>
>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>
>That's just it.
>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)

I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
disappears within a few weeks.

>Manuel
>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>others most of whom you never knew.
>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>from those guys.
>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>more

I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.

>Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>topic.
>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>arguing.
>Until it started getting bitter.

Specifically?

>It's as busy as it ever was.
>Just not as interesting these days.
>Most of the driving away (Of the real old timers) was done by a few
>who aren't here any longer themselves.

Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.

Pat Styles
December 3rd 04, 05:37 AM
"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
> That's just it.
> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
> Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
> Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
> Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
> others most of whom you never knew.

I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I didn't ;-)
I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who were before my time,
too.
ps

Pat Styles
December 3rd 04, 05:39 AM
"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
> wrote:
>
>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>
> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
> etc.

Lot of great people here, too! You have a great memory or a lot of saved posts.
:-)
ps

Pat Styles
December 3rd 04, 05:39 AM
"aj" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-12-03, Bob Mann > wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> etc.
>>
>> Lots of people.
>> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>> talk.
>> It's all been said.
>>
>> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>> Not many still here are there?
>> That's the crowd Rob misses.
>> Even the trolls were more fun.
>
> SGT ROBO.
>
> --
> -aj

That's Rob Beare, he was on Bob's other list.
ps

John HUDSON
December 3rd 04, 08:26 AM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>
>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>
>>That's just it.
>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>
>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>disappears within a few weeks.
>
>>Manuel
>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>from those guys.
>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>more
>
>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.

As a one time leading light here, you more than most have contributed
to the decline in the group. How about you set a good example and post
something "moderately interesting" for a change, and give politics and
giving Mike Lane the ****s a miss?!!

>
>>Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>>topic.
>>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>>arguing.
>>Until it started getting bitter.
>
>Specifically?
>
>>It's as busy as it ever was.
>>Just not as interesting these days.
>>Most of the driving away (Of the real old timers) was done by a few
>>who aren't here any longer themselves.
>
>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.

The dynamics here are exactly brilliant, which is a great shame!!

Have a great weekend John - you know I will!! ;o)

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
December 3rd 04, 08:32 AM
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:37:25 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
>> That's just it.
>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>> Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>> Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>> Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>> others most of whom you never knew.
>
>I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I didn't ;-)

You're on the supplementary list for game chickens Pat!! Are you
getting plucked for Christmas?

Have a great weekend Pat - you know I will!! ;o)

TFIF!!

JH
www.fitnwell.net

John HUDSON
December 3rd 04, 08:36 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:26:13 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>>
>>>That's just it.
>>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>>
>>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>>disappears within a few weeks.
>>
>>>Manuel
>>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>>from those guys.
>>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>>more
>>
>>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.
>
>As a one time leading light here, you more than most have contributed
>to the decline in the group. How about you set a good example and post
>something "moderately interesting" for a change, and give politics and
>giving Mike Lane the ****s a miss?!!
>
>>
>>>Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>>>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>>>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>>>topic.
>>>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>>>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>>>arguing.
>>>Until it started getting bitter.
>>
>>Specifically?
>>
>>>It's as busy as it ever was.
>>>Just not as interesting these days.
>>>Most of the driving away (Of the real old timers) was done by a few
>>>who aren't here any longer themselves.
>>
>>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.
>
>The dynamics here are exactly brilliant, which is a great shame!!

That should of course read: "The dynamics here aren't exactly
brilliant, which is a great shame!!"

>
>Have a great weekend John - you know I will!! ;o)
>
>TFIF!!

John M. Williams
December 3rd 04, 10:51 PM
John HUDSON > wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>>
>>>That's just it.
>>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>>
>>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>>disappears within a few weeks.
>>
>>>Manuel
>>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>>from those guys.
>>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>>more
>>
>>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.
>
>As a one time leading light here, you more than most have contributed
>to the decline in the group. How about you set a good example and post
>something "moderately interesting" for a change, and give politics and
>giving Mike Lane the ****s a miss?!!

Here's a reference you might find interesting:

Williams, JM. Glycemic and insulinemic responses to Hudson eating the
corn out of my ****. Int J Coprophagia. 2004 Dec;10(3):120-4.

John HUDSON
December 3rd 04, 11:40 PM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 17:51:45 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>John HUDSON > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>>>
>>>>That's just it.
>>>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>>>
>>>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>>>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>>>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>>>disappears within a few weeks.
>>>
>>>>Manuel
>>>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>>>from those guys.
>>>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>>>more
>>>
>>>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.
>>
>>As a one time leading light here, you more than most have contributed
>>to the decline in the group. How about you set a good example and post
>>something "moderately interesting" for a change, and give politics and
>>giving Mike Lane the ****s a miss?!!
>
>Here's a reference you might find interesting:
>
>Williams, JM. Glycemic and insulinemic responses to Hudson eating the
>corn out of my ****. Int J Coprophagia. 2004 Dec;10(3):120-4.

It's mildly amusing but not in the least bit interesting.

However, it's 100% better than the 'crap' you have been churning out,
although nowhere near as good as you are capable!!

Keep up the good work JW and have a good weekend - you know I will!!
;o)

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
December 4th 04, 12:11 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:44:36 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 08:26:13 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>>>
>>>>That's just it.
>>>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>>>
>>>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>>>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>>>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>>>disappears within a few weeks.
>>>
>>>>Manuel
>>>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>>>from those guys.
>>>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>>>more
>>>
>>>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.
>>
>>As a one time leading light here, you more than most have contributed
>>to the decline in the group. How about you set a good example and post
>>something "moderately interesting" for a change, and give politics and
>>giving Mike Lane the ****s a miss?!!
>
>If there is one thing he cannot do it is ignore a trolling. He also
>does a lot more of his own unsolicited trolling these days, by my
>estimation.

That's patently untrue Mike as William's trolling has been almost
non-existent for some considerable time now, compared to his former
obsessive compulsive behaviour in that area!!

Have a great weekend - I am already!! ;o)

John M. Williams
December 4th 04, 12:48 AM
Usenet Posting > wrote:
> "Pat Styles" > wrote:
>>"Bob Mann" > wrote:
>>> That's just it.
>>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>> Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>> Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>> Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>> others most of whom you never knew.
>>
>>I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I didn't ;-)
>>I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who were before my time,
>>too.
>
>That Mike Lane guy was a piece of work.

Well, a piece of something.

Axel of the North!
December 4th 04, 04:14 AM
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:
>
>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>;o)

here here, good sir!

how about boarish?

TFIF!

;*|

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 05:39 AM
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>
>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>
>>That's just it.
>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>
>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>disappears within a few weeks.

It was disturbing to say the least.
Weed must be a whole lot different now than it was 25-30 years ago.
>
>>Manuel
>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>from those guys.
>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>more
>
>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.

That's a big part of it.
There isn't much interesting left to discuss is there.
And most of the people it would have been interesting to discuss with
aren't around either.
>
>>Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>>topic.
>>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>>arguing.
>>Until it started getting bitter.
>
>Specifically?

I was thinking of Mike K and Bill R plus Steve Kidwell and Sandeep in
particular.
Then there was the Pat Arnold and Bill R wars with Mike Lane adding
his 2 cents plus a couple of other things.
As I recall you had a couple of wars going on too. Most notably with
Lyle.
>
>>It's as busy as it ever was.
>>Just not as interesting these days.
>>Most of the driving away (Of the real old timers) was done by a few
>>who aren't here any longer themselves.
>
>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.

A lot of people left here and started or joined web forums.
I was on the strength lust for a while as a mailing list too but that
degenerated badly.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 05:41 AM
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:37:25 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
>> That's just it.
>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>> Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>> Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>> Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>> others most of whom you never knew.
>
>I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I didn't ;-)
>I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who were before my time,
>too.
>ps
>
I caught up with you in the next list. I went back before your time
with this one.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 05:42 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:42:49 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:55:06 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>
>>That's just it.
>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>others most of whom you never knew.
>
>Damn, what was that kid's name. Matt something....he did a "poof"
>too.
>
>Is it generally agreed that Omega is Knapik?

I don't know about generally but there was something he said a while
back that nailed it for me.
It fit right in with his obsessiveness too.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 05:43 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:37:54 -0000, aj > wrote:

>On 2004-12-03, Bob Mann > wrote:
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> etc.
>>
>> Lots of people.
>> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>> talk.
>> It's all been said.
>>
>> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>> Not many still here are there?
>> That's the crowd Rob misses.
>> Even the trolls were more fun.
>
>SGT ROBO.

Rob Beare was in the first list.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 05:45 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:41:54 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>>etc.
>>
>>Lots of people.
>>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>>talk.
>>It's all been said.
>>
>>I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>>Not many still here are there?
>>That's the crowd Rob misses.
>>Even the trolls were more fun.
>
>That's the old "it wasn't like it in my day" syndrome!! ;o)
>
>HAGW!!
>
>TFIF!

It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
signal just wasn't as interesting any more.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 05:46 AM
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:39:07 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> etc.
>
>Lot of great people here, too! You have a great memory or a lot of saved posts.
>:-)
>ps
>
Part memory and part Google.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John M. Williams
December 4th 04, 05:52 AM
Bob Mann > wrote:
>
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>
>>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.
>
>A lot of people left here and started or joined web forums.
>I was on the strength lust for a while as a mailing list too but that
>degenerated badly.

I tried it for a very short time. I wasn't very fond of it.

In my experience, web forums have an overabundance of net nannies and
blowhards. It's not that there aren't the same in MFW, but on web
forums, those types don't get the type of all-out ass-whuppins that
they get on Usenet, and thus, they reign more freely.

John M. Williams
December 4th 04, 06:15 AM
Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
>I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
>The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
>signal just wasn't as interesting any more.

So you decided to spend your time in rec.motorcycles with Mr. Hankey?

;)

John HUDSON
December 4th 04, 08:31 AM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 04:14:08 GMT, (Axel of the North!)
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>>
>>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>>;o)
>
>here here, good sir!

Surely that's 'hear hear' dear boy!!

>
>how about boarish?

I rarely make a pig of myself but I will be having a great weekend - I
hope you will too Axel!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 4th 04, 08:45 AM
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:45:16 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:41:54 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>>
>>>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>>>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>>>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>>>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>>>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>>>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>>>etc.
>>>
>>>Lots of people.
>>>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>>>talk.
>>>It's all been said.
>>>
>>>I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>>>Not many still here are there?
>>>That's the crowd Rob misses.
>>>Even the trolls were more fun.
>>
>>That's the old "it wasn't like it in my day" syndrome!! ;o)
>>
>>HAGW!!
>>
>>TFIF!
>
>It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
>I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
>The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
>signal just wasn't as interesting any more.

The whole concept is singularly lacking in intellectual challenge. The
fitness thing is boringly repetitive and is usually an excuse for the
'leading lights' to impress each other with their 'scholarship'!!

MFW needs an inventive brain or sheer obstinacy to derive anything
from it on a long-term basis!! The only enduring and redeeming feature
is the humour, and to a lesser degree the personal feuds!!

It is a constant source of amazement and amusement that people who are
complete strangers, can pen such hateful and personal epistles to and
about each other on a regular basis. It is also quaint to observe the
ways which the various personalities sulk when things don't go their
way.

Sadly we have lost our way for some time now!!

Have a great weekend - I am!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 4th 04, 08:53 AM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:52:31 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>
>>>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>>>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>>>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.
>>
>>A lot of people left here and started or joined web forums.
>>I was on the strength lust for a while as a mailing list too but that
>>degenerated badly.
>
>I tried it for a very short time. I wasn't very fond of it.
>
>In my experience, web forums have an overabundance of net nannies and
>blowhards. It's not that there aren't the same in MFW, but on web
>forums, those types don't get the type of all-out ass-whuppins that
>they get on Usenet, and thus, they reign more freely.

Naw dude, there aint been much "all-out ass-whuppins" happening here
this year y'all!!

Dang and tarnation pard, y'all "reigned" for a long while in the
"ass-whuppin" department, 'til ya got yo ass well and truly 'reined'
dude!! ;o)

Have a great weekend pard - y'all know I sure will!! ;o)

Pat Styles
December 4th 04, 11:14 AM
"Usenet Posting" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:37:25 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> > wrote:
>
>>"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
>>> That's just it.
>>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>> Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>> Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>> Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>> others most of whom you never knew.
>>
>>I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I didn't
>>;-)
>>I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who were before my time,
>>too.
>>ps
>>
>
> That Mike Lane guy was a piece of work.

Yeah, a legend in your own mind.
ps

John HUDSON
December 4th 04, 11:49 AM
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 03:14:04 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"Usenet Posting" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:37:25 -0800, "Pat Styles"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob Mann" > wrote in message
...
>>>> That's just it.
>>>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>> Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>>>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>> Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>> Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>> others most of whom you never knew.
>>>
>>>I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I didn't
>>>;-)
>>>I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who were before my time,
>>>too.
>>>ps
>>>
>>
>> That Mike Lane guy was a piece of work.
>
>Yeah, a legend in your own mind.

Talking about "leg ends", how's the emaciated pins?

Cluck cluck!!

HAGW - I am!! ;o)

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 01:57 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:52:31 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>
>>>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>>>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>>>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.
>>
>>A lot of people left here and started or joined web forums.
>>I was on the strength lust for a while as a mailing list too but that
>>degenerated badly.
>
>I tried it for a very short time. I wasn't very fond of it.
>
>In my experience, web forums have an overabundance of net nannies and
>blowhards. It's not that there aren't the same in MFW, but on web
>forums, those types don't get the type of all-out ass-whuppins that
>they get on Usenet, and thus, they reign more freely.

That's because they usually become admins and delete the posts they
don't like on web forums while this is a wide open free for all.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 02:00 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 06:16:17 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:39:05 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 23:42:13 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>>>
>>>>That's just it.
>>>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>>>
>>>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>>>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>>>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>>>disappears within a few weeks.
>>
>>It was disturbing to say the least.
>>Weed must be a whole lot different now than it was 25-30 years ago.
>>>
>>>>Manuel
>>>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>>>from those guys.
>>>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>>>more
>>>
>>>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.
>>
>>That's a big part of it.
>>There isn't much interesting left to discuss is there.
>>And most of the people it would have been interesting to discuss with
>>aren't around either.
>>>
>>>>Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>>>>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>>>>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>>>>topic.
>>>>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>>>>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>>>>arguing.
>>>>Until it started getting bitter.
>>>
>>>Specifically?
>>
>>I was thinking of Mike K and Bill R plus Steve Kidwell and Sandeep in
>>particular.
>>Then there was the Pat Arnold and Bill R wars with Mike Lane adding
>>his 2 cents plus a couple of other things.
>>As I recall you had a couple of wars going on too. Most notably with
>>Lyle.
>
>I think the most fun I ever had on Usenet was trolling Kidwell. He
>was actually quite good in his ripostes.
>
>I think my Kidwell Interview was the best piece I ever wrote for MFW
>but it has to be read in the context of the time to be funny. If
>someone read it now it would be like "huh"?

Except for those 20 or so of us who were around then.
Skids could be funny as hell but he sure could throw a hissy fit too.
Come to think of it.
That was funny too.
I think it was all out war between Bill R and Sandeep that provided
the turning oint come to think of it.
That was about the time Bill started really going over the top.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 02:07 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 01:15:16 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
>>I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
>>The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
>>signal just wasn't as interesting any more.
>
>So you decided to spend your time in rec.motorcycles with Mr. Hankey?
>
>;)
He just happens to have an interest in both.
There is the odd post in 50 that relates to the group topic and he can
be funny as well.
Mostly I just sail past.
I'm slowly learning to ignore the political trolling from both ends of
the spectrum.
And I do like bikes.


--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 02:13 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:45:53 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:45:16 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:41:54 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>>>
>>>>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>>>>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>>>>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>>>>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>>>>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>>>>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>>>>etc.
>>>>
>>>>Lots of people.
>>>>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>>>>talk.
>>>>It's all been said.
>>>>
>>>>I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>>>>Not many still here are there?
>>>>That's the crowd Rob misses.
>>>>Even the trolls were more fun.
>>>
>>>That's the old "it wasn't like it in my day" syndrome!! ;o)
>>>
>>>HAGW!!
>>>
>>>TFIF!
>>
>>It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
>>I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
>>The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
>>signal just wasn't as interesting any more.
>
>The whole concept is singularly lacking in intellectual challenge. The
>fitness thing is boringly repetitive and is usually an excuse for the
>'leading lights' to impress each other with their 'scholarship'!!

There used to be a lot of discussion on an intellectual level. Several
people would exchange ideas and talk about research until money became
an issue. As long as they were all poor it was all good.
Then they had separate companies and were in direct competition and
instead of working together they spent most of their time here trying
to pull eacj other down.
>
>MFW needs an inventive brain or sheer obstinacy to derive anything
>from it on a long-term basis!! The only enduring and redeeming feature
>is the humour, and to a lesser degree the personal feuds!!

The feuds now are minor and half the time either just trolling or
political. It rarely has to do with fitness.
Keith, Krista and Lyle seem to be the only ones still really slogging
in that direction.
>
>It is a constant source of amazement and amusement that people who are
>complete strangers, can pen such hateful and personal epistles to and
>about each other on a regular basis. It is also quaint to observe the
>ways which the various personalities sulk when things don't go their
>way.

It always botherd me. Especially when two people I considered net
friends would start in on each other.
>
>Sadly we have lost our way for some time now!!

I'd say it goes back about 6 years and it's been steadily downhill
ever since.
Some would probably say it's been longer than that because they've
been here longer than me and have seen more changes.
>
>Have a great weekend - I am!! ;o)

--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John M. Williams
December 4th 04, 03:22 PM
Bob Mann > wrote:

> John M. Williams > wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Web forums have had an effect. I've tried web forums, but over time,
>>>>I've become disenchanted with every one I've tried. In my opinion,
>>>>the dynamics of web forums just don't cut it.
>>>
>>>A lot of people left here and started or joined web forums.
>>>I was on the strength lust for a while as a mailing list too but that
>>>degenerated badly.
>>
>>I tried it for a very short time. I wasn't very fond of it.
>>
>>In my experience, web forums have an overabundance of net nannies and
>>blowhards. It's not that there aren't the same in MFW, but on web
>>forums, those types don't get the type of all-out ass-whuppins that
>>they get on Usenet, and thus, they reign more freely.
>
>That's because they usually become admins and delete the posts they
>don't like on web forums while this is a wide open free for all.

Precisely. A little anarchy can be a good thing.

John M. Williams
December 4th 04, 03:26 PM
Bob Mann > wrote:

> Usenet Posting > wrote:
>
>> Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> John HUDSON > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's not true Bob; most of the people who made the group attractive
>>>>>>to me are still here and contributing. They are also responsible for
>>>>>>****ing it up with their clannishness and infantile behaviour, and
>>>>>>have raised "boring" to new levels!!
>>>>>
>>>>>That's just it.
>>>>>You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty, Bill
>>>>>Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>>>>Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>>>>Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>>>>Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?)
>>>>
>>>>I've Googled but never found any further mention of him. That was
>>>>kinda creepy. Semi-dorky, smart, hyperactive kid with some athletic
>>>>ability smokes weed for the first time, goes bonkers over it, then
>>>>disappears within a few weeks.
>>>
>>>It was disturbing to say the least.
>>>Weed must be a whole lot different now than it was 25-30 years ago.
>>>>
>>>>>Manuel
>>>>>Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>>>>Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>>>>Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane, Adam
>>>>>Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell, Jon
>>>>>Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>>>>others most of whom you never knew.
>>>>>You might not have been into bodybuilding but there was a lot to learn
>>>>>from those guys.
>>>>>Of those left, Will and Joohn Williams rarely talk about lifting any
>>>>>more
>>>>
>>>>I guess it helps if someone raises a moderately interesting issue.
>>>
>>>That's a big part of it.
>>>There isn't much interesting left to discuss is there.
>>>And most of the people it would have been interesting to discuss with
>>>aren't around either.
>>>>
>>>>>Mike Knapik, if he posts, rants about government under assumed
>>>>>names, Rob pops in once in a blue moon as does Tim. Tree posts the FAQ
>>>>>on automatic and most of the rest have left or never did post much on
>>>>>topic.
>>>>>Krista is about the only one left who does.
>>>>>I didn't like all of them but most had a sense of humour even when
>>>>>arguing.
>>>>>Until it started getting bitter.
>>>>
>>>>Specifically?
>>>
>>>I was thinking of Mike K and Bill R plus Steve Kidwell and Sandeep in
>>>particular.
>>>Then there was the Pat Arnold and Bill R wars with Mike Lane adding
>>>his 2 cents plus a couple of other things.
>>>As I recall you had a couple of wars going on too. Most notably with
>>>Lyle.
>>
>>I think the most fun I ever had on Usenet was trolling Kidwell. He
>>was actually quite good in his ripostes.
>>
>>I think my Kidwell Interview was the best piece I ever wrote for MFW
>>but it has to be read in the context of the time to be funny. If
>>someone read it now it would be like "huh"?
>
>Except for those 20 or so of us who were around then.
>Skids could be funny as hell but he sure could throw a hissy fit too.
>Come to think of it.
>That was funny too.
>I think it was all out war between Bill R and Sandeep that provided
>the turning oint come to think of it.
>That was about the time Bill started really going over the top.

"Over the top" didn't bother me as much as "selling out."

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 07:27 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 16:18:03 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote:

>Oh yeah, you forgot Doc Squat and Son of Squat. And really we should
>add Victor because I think it shows the "strength" of this place in
>its day that it even attracted a guy as heavily "into the scene" as he
>was.

That's right. I had forgotten them although from time to time it comes
back and I think how fortunate we were then to have all these very
knowledgable people in here.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 4th 04, 07:29 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 10:26:35 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>"Over the top" didn't bother me as much as "selling out."

I think they went hand in hand.
As long as nobody was making any real money at it and they were all
more or less in it out of inerest it was okay. Sure they argued but it
never really got nasty until there were vested interests to protect.
Once they were all in competition it all went out the window.
Including integrity.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John HUDSON
December 4th 04, 11:28 PM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:13:30 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:45:53 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:45:16 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:41:54 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>>>>
>>>>>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>>>>>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>>>>>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>>>>>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>>>>>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>>>>>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>>>>>etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lots of people.
>>>>>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>>>>>talk.
>>>>>It's all been said.
>>>>>
>>>>>I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>>>>>Not many still here are there?
>>>>>That's the crowd Rob misses.
>>>>>Even the trolls were more fun.
>>>>
>>>>That's the old "it wasn't like it in my day" syndrome!! ;o)
>>>>
>>>>HAGW!!
>>>>
>>>>TFIF!
>>>
>>>It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
>>>I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
>>>The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
>>>signal just wasn't as interesting any more.
>>
>>The whole concept is singularly lacking in intellectual challenge. The
>>fitness thing is boringly repetitive and is usually an excuse for the
>>'leading lights' to impress each other with their 'scholarship'!!
>
>There used to be a lot of discussion on an intellectual level. Several
>people would exchange ideas and talk about research until money became
>an issue. As long as they were all poor it was all good.
>Then they had separate companies and were in direct competition and
>instead of working together they spent most of their time here trying
>to pull eacj other down.
>>
>>MFW needs an inventive brain or sheer obstinacy to derive anything
>>from it on a long-term basis!! The only enduring and redeeming feature
>>is the humour, and to a lesser degree the personal feuds!!
>
>The feuds now are minor and half the time either just trolling or
>political. It rarely has to do with fitness.
>Keith, Krista and Lyle seem to be the only ones still really slogging
>in that direction.
>>
>>It is a constant source of amazement and amusement that people who are
>>complete strangers, can pen such hateful and personal epistles to and
>>about each other on a regular basis. It is also quaint to observe the
>>ways which the various personalities sulk when things don't go their
>>way.
>
>It always botherd me. Especially when two people I considered net
>friends would start in on each other.
>>
>>Sadly we have lost our way for some time now!!
>
>I'd say it goes back about 6 years and it's been steadily downhill
>ever since.
>Some would probably say it's been longer than that because they've
>been here longer than me and have seen more changes.

Well I've been here less time than you and there has been a marked
deterioration during my time.

The 'prima donnas' don't like competition, viz: Williams, Brink,
McDonald, and the minor 'hangers on' viz: Styles, Hoffman, Michaels et
al are more of a hindrance than a help, with their childish one
line/one word sniping from the sidelines!!

They need to encourage original thought; they should stop being so
parochial and become more inclusive; they might consider giving credit
where it's due instead of being so resentful of new 'talent'!! The
dreaded "killfiles" are anathema to a boisterous newsgroup, even if
people are merely hiding behind them.

The dreaded "killfiles", if they are as widely used as we are led to
believe, mean that half the group doesn't see what the other half is
contributing. This is an obvious division, which will have a profound
effect upon the dynamics of the group.

The height of stupidity is responding to obvious racist/seditious
trolls such as Hanky and 'Tofu' Bob et al. That kind of pursuit will
discourage participation in this group for sure!! National politics,
electioneering and rampant xenophobia will be the final nail in the
coffin.

Even Cohen, who has the sharpest wit of all contributors, can't find
enough to feed on. We can ill afford to lose his talent!!

HAGW - I am!! ;o)

Bob Mann
December 5th 04, 04:25 AM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:28:25 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>Well I've been here less time than you and there has been a marked
>deterioration during my time.

Probably.
I started getting tired of it before you came along.
To be honest.
You didn't help a whole lot for a while yourself.
It takes two to fight and any time two people go at it incessantly it
drags things down another notch.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Tua Mater
December 5th 04, 05:48 AM
Usenet Posting > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:45:16 -0600, Bob Mann >
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:41:54 +0000, John HUDSON >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
> >>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
> >>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
> >>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
> >>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
> >>>
> >>>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
> >>>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
> >>>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
> >>>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
> >>>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
> >>>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
> >>>etc.
> >>>
> >>>Lots of people.
> >>>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
> >>>talk.
> >>>It's all been said.
> >>>

word. hard work. simple program. good food. protein. water. sleep.

that's about it

otoh, guns and stuff are infinitely nuanced. :l

whit

> >>>I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
> >>>Not many still here are there?
> >>>That's the crowd Rob misses.
> >>>Even the trolls were more fun.
> >>
> >>That's the old "it wasn't like it in my day" syndrome!! ;o)
> >>
> >>HAGW!!
> >>
> >>TFIF!
> >
> >It's partly the newsgroup and partly me.
> >I got tired of taliking about training and so did a lot of others.
> >The signal to noise ratio seemed to get a lot worse or maybe the
> >signal just wasn't as interesting any more.
>
> Well, my recall is selective (of course) but I thought the
> pharmacological discussion led to really fascinating scientific
> discussion of biology. So while even pharmacologically enhanced
> bodybuilding also can get pretty simple ("shoot 500mg TE a week and
> take some clomid" which may be the equivalent of "pick up heavy stuff
> put it down" or "eat less, move more") it could also lead to endlessly
> interesting discussion of human biology (and animal biology if you are
> Nelson Montana and believe in cat receptors). The same was true of
> cutting edge dieting. Back in those days there were people getting
> ripped down to sub 7%, some for competition and some for fun. Lyle
> "cut his teeth" in those days when all the little tips, tricks and
> biological discussion actually mattered to people. MFW was like a
> giant petri dish where there were people with some serious scientific
> training and experimental ideas combined with people who had a hell of
> a lot of real-world experimental knowledge. In fact, I bought
> androstenedione back when PA was selling it in plastic baggies! We
> even had Duchaine as a regular poster before he became ill (and some
> people suspected Bill Phillips' brother posted here). I think it was
> more than just a little bit different--it was enormously different.
> The final nail in the coffin of those days was when PAs posts to MFW
> showed up in some kind of legal case against him. To me that marked
> the final end of that period.
>
> As a side note, I was actually rather amazed how much I already knew
> about bio from MFW when I started my pre-med training. I don't know
> if talk about weightlifting offers the same avenue to keep the
> discussion interesting. It might and I think it depends on the
> audience.
>
> Oh yeah, you forgot Doc Squat and Son of Squat. And really we should
> add Victor because I think it shows the "strength" of this place in
> its day that it even attracted a guy as heavily "into the scene" as he
> was.
>
>
> --
> The pain is pretty overwhelming, prolly
> comparable only to childbirth or kidney stones.
> --Brian L.

Axel of the North!
December 5th 04, 06:11 AM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 08:31:21 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 04:14:08 GMT, (Axel of the North!)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 16:56:26 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>My own contribution to the change in the groups dynamics has been
>>>quite significant, whether some here like it or not. However, despite
>>>whosoever's nose I might get up, I am rarely described as "boring"!!
>>>;o)
>>
>>here here, good sir!
>
>Surely that's 'hear hear' dear boy!!
>
>>
>>how about boarish?
>
>I rarely make a pig of myself but I will be having a great weekend - I
>hope you will too Axel!! ;o)
>

ja... well.. this woman from work (the new co-worker) drove me home
from a once-a-year party and i didn't even get to come all over her
face...

:^(

Charlie Moody
December 5th 04, 07:06 AM
On 2004-12-02 19:11:54 -0500, Bob Mann > said:

> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
> wrote:
>
>> Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>> group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>> goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>> there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>> here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>
> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
> etc.
>
> Lots of people.
> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
> talk.
> It's all been said.
>
> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
> Not many still here are there?
> That's the crowd Rob misses.
> Even the trolls were more fun.

Wild days.

Left out Robo...Karl...Bil Greene...me (sob!)
Dr. Bigtime...Angela Pahlow
glad to see Robin & Viki...Sandeep...
Kidwell...Watson & Larson...
Krista, of course, and you.

the Kneller/Roberts wars were big fun -
"Nurse Brucie" was some funny ****....
*very* different tone back then -
smart as hell, and just too damn' funny.

John HUDSON
December 5th 04, 09:11 AM
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:25:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:28:25 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>Well I've been here less time than you and there has been a marked
>>deterioration during my time.
>
>Probably.
>I started getting tired of it before you came along.
>To be honest.
>You didn't help a whole lot for a while yourself.

I have already owned up to that, to which your response was a
reference to my "self aggrandizement"!! ;o)

>It takes two to fight and any time two people go at it incessantly it
>drags things down another notch.

That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
bugger's life a misery.

I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
bud!!

This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
themselves the way they did!!

Have a great Sunday Bob - I intend to, particularly as I played a
tough game of rugby yesterday, and emerged unscathed for the first
time for absolutely ages!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 5th 04, 09:17 AM
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:06:59 -0500, Charlie Moody
> wrote:

>On 2004-12-02 19:11:54 -0500, Bob Mann > said:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>> group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>> goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>> there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>> here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> etc.
>>
>> Lots of people.
>> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>> talk.
>> It's all been said.
>>
>> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>> Not many still here are there?
>> That's the crowd Rob misses.
>> Even the trolls were more fun.
>
>Wild days.
>
>Left out Robo...Karl...Bil Greene...me (sob!)
>Dr. Bigtime...Angela Pahlow
>glad to see Robin & Viki...Sandeep...
>Kidwell...Watson & Larson...
>Krista, of course, and you.
>
>the Kneller/Roberts wars were big fun -
>"Nurse Brucie" was some funny ****....
>*very* different tone back then -
>smart as hell, and just too damn' funny.

When it comes to "funny" Tokyo Bob had few equals!! ;o)

Have a great Sunday - I intend to!! ;o)

David
December 5th 04, 09:24 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:25:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:28:25 +0000, John HUDSON >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Well I've been here less time than you and there has been a marked
> >>deterioration during my time.
> >
> >Probably.
> >I started getting tired of it before you came along.
> >To be honest.
> >You didn't help a whole lot for a while yourself.
>
> I have already owned up to that, to which your response was a
> reference to my "self aggrandizement"!! ;o)
>
> >It takes two to fight and any time two people go at it incessantly it
> >drags things down another notch.
>
> That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
> obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
> bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
> *******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
> bugger's life a misery.
>
> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
> bud!!
>
> This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
> former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
> themselves the way they did!!
>
> Have a great Sunday Bob - I intend to, particularly as I played a
> tough game of rugby yesterday, and emerged unscathed for the first
> time for absolutely ages!! ;o)

John, IMO you seem to bully Lee (Mr Angry) - I feel sorry for him cause
when you attack him he gets kind of pathetic and starts whining a lot. I
know he doesn't have much to contribute (of course his sub 70 IQ doesn't
help!) but maybe go easy on him a little??

John HUDSON
December 5th 04, 09:50 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:24:45 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:25:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:28:25 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>Well I've been here less time than you and there has been a marked
>> >>deterioration during my time.
>> >
>> >Probably.
>> >I started getting tired of it before you came along.
>> >To be honest.
>> >You didn't help a whole lot for a while yourself.
>>
>> I have already owned up to that, to which your response was a
>> reference to my "self aggrandizement"!! ;o)
>>
>> >It takes two to fight and any time two people go at it incessantly it
>> >drags things down another notch.
>>
>> That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>> obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>> bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>> *******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>> bugger's life a misery.
>>
>> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>> bud!!
>>
>> This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>> former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>> themselves the way they did!!
>>
>> Have a great Sunday Bob - I intend to, particularly as I played a
>> tough game of rugby yesterday, and emerged unscathed for the first
>> time for absolutely ages!! ;o)
>
>John, IMO you seem to bully Lee (Mr Angry) - I feel sorry for him cause
>when you attack him he gets kind of pathetic and starts whining a lot. I
>know he doesn't have much to contribute (of course his sub 70 IQ doesn't
>help!) but maybe go easy on him a little??
>

Sorry David, in my haste to right wrongs I had completely overlooked
this possibility!! I hope "Mr Angry" will forgive me. I promise to
ease up on him as requested!! ;o)

I suppose your Sunday is all but done; I hope you had a good one. Mine
stretches before me and I intend to make the most of it - as usual.

Nice to hear from you mate; take care!! ;o)

David
December 5th 04, 10:30 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:24:45 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 22:25:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:28:25 +0000, John HUDSON >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Well I've been here less time than you and there has been a marked
> >> >>deterioration during my time.
> >> >
> >> >Probably.
> >> >I started getting tired of it before you came along.
> >> >To be honest.
> >> >You didn't help a whole lot for a while yourself.
> >>
> >> I have already owned up to that, to which your response was a
> >> reference to my "self aggrandizement"!! ;o)
> >>
> >> >It takes two to fight and any time two people go at it incessantly it
> >> >drags things down another notch.
> >>
> >> That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
> >> obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
> >> bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
> >> *******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
> >> bugger's life a misery.
> >>
> >> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
> >> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
> >> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
> >> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
> >> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
> >> bud!!
> >>
> >> This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
> >> former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
> >> themselves the way they did!!
> >>
> >> Have a great Sunday Bob - I intend to, particularly as I played a
> >> tough game of rugby yesterday, and emerged unscathed for the first
> >> time for absolutely ages!! ;o)
> >
> >John, IMO you seem to bully Lee (Mr Angry) - I feel sorry for him cause
> >when you attack him he gets kind of pathetic and starts whining a lot. I
> >know he doesn't have much to contribute (of course his sub 70 IQ doesn't
> >help!) but maybe go easy on him a little??
> >
>
> Sorry David, in my haste to right wrongs I had completely overlooked
> this possibility!! I hope "Mr Angry" will forgive me. I promise to
> ease up on him as requested!! ;o)
>
> I suppose your Sunday is all but done; I hope you had a good one. Mine
> stretches before me and I intend to make the most of it - as usual.
>
> Nice to hear from you mate; take care!! ;o)

Yes you too John and have a great day! - for us soon it will be Monday!
(Ugh!!)

Bob Mann
December 5th 04, 08:49 PM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>bugger's life a misery.

The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.

>
>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>bud!!

Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
Everyone gets it at some time.
Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>
>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>themselves the way they did!!

Maybe but I doubt it.
People just get tired after a while and move on.
>
>Have a great Sunday Bob - I intend to, particularly as I played a
>tough game of rugby yesterday, and emerged unscathed for the first
>time for absolutely ages!! ;o)

Had a family pre-Christmas brunch with the wife's extended family this
morning and her office Christmas party on Friday.
Now I think I'll go out and see if I can pre-spend the Christmas
money.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 5th 04, 08:51 PM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 05:48:43 GMT, "Tua Mater" >
wrote:

>
>Usenet Posting > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:45:16 -0600, Bob Mann >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 00:41:54 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:11:54 -0600, Bob Mann >
>> >>wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> >>>wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>> >>>>group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>> >>>>goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>> >>>>there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>> >>>>here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>> >>>
>> >>>****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> >>>(sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> >>>Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> >>>Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> >>>Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> >>>Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> >>>etc.
>> >>>
>> >>>Lots of people.
>> >>>Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>> >>>talk.
>> >>>It's all been said.
>> >>>
>
>word. hard work. simple program. good food. protein. water. sleep.
>
>that's about it
>
>otoh, guns and stuff are infinitely nuanced. :l
>
>whit
>
True, true. 200 grain or 225? Which 9mm is better balanced?
So many questions, so many answers for every question.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 5th 04, 08:55 PM
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:06:59 -0500, Charlie Moody
> wrote:

>On 2004-12-02 19:11:54 -0500, Bob Mann > said:
>
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>> group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>> goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>> there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>> here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>
>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>> etc.
>>
>> Lots of people.
>> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>> talk.
>> It's all been said.
>>
>> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>> Not many still here are there?
>> That's the crowd Rob misses.
>> Even the trolls were more fun.
>
>Wild days.
>
>Left out Robo...Karl...Bil Greene...me (sob!)
>Dr. Bigtime...Angela Pahlow
>glad to see Robin & Viki...Sandeep...
>Kidwell...Watson & Larson...
>Krista, of course, and you.
>
>the Kneller/Roberts wars were big fun -
>"Nurse Brucie" was some funny ****....
>*very* different tone back then -
>smart as hell, and just too damn' funny.

I think it's the humour people used to attack each other with that I
missed the most.
Sorry I forgot you. I was just sort of scroling through old archives
to pull up names. I caught Robo (by his real name) Don't know how I
could have left out Angela though since we have occasionally
corresponded off list. Thought I got Dr. Bigtime too. He was a class
act.
I think I miss Barry Sullivan the most though. ;-)
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 5th 04, 08:56 PM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:17:05 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 02:06:59 -0500, Charlie Moody
> wrote:
>
>>On 2004-12-02 19:11:54 -0500, Bob Mann > said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:55:58 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rob Schuh, who I find very amusing, is dwelling in the past and this
>>>> group is no longer dominated by the 'body beautifuls' - and thank
>>>> goodness for that. This group has been much better than it is now, and
>>>> there has been a marked deterioration in the time that I have been
>>>> here - and not just because of my involvement!! ;o)
>>>
>>> ****, how could I forget Stephanie Starr, Frank McQuarry, Ed Strum
>>> (sic), Greg Whitman, Watson Davis, Viki Selca, Frank Selvaggio, tom
>>> Morley, Jim Hinze, Trace Eggars, Richard Jasper, Mark Pitroff from Ad
>>> Fit, Kelly McMillan, Stephen Mulholland, Robin Coleman (of World's
>>> Strongest Woman), Pat Styles, Whit, Eric Midkiff, Matt Staples, Billy
>>> Chambless. Van Der, Pete, Paula Estey, Matt Madsen, Seth Breidbart
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Lots of people.
>>> Most of the ones who stayed seem to have become bored with weight
>>> talk.
>>> It's all been said.
>>>
>>> I went back from May1995 to Dec 1999 to get those names.
>>> Not many still here are there?
>>> That's the crowd Rob misses.
>>> Even the trolls were more fun.
>>
>>Wild days.
>>
>>Left out Robo...Karl...Bil Greene...me (sob!)
>>Dr. Bigtime...Angela Pahlow
>>glad to see Robin & Viki...Sandeep...
>>Kidwell...Watson & Larson...
>>Krista, of course, and you.
>>
>>the Kneller/Roberts wars were big fun -
>>"Nurse Brucie" was some funny ****....
>>*very* different tone back then -
>>smart as hell, and just too damn' funny.
>
>When it comes to "funny" Tokyo Bob had few equals!! ;o)
>
Another one who is missed.

--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John M. Williams
December 6th 04, 12:18 AM
Bob Mann > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>
>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>bugger's life a misery.
>
>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>
>>
>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>bud!!
>
>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>Everyone gets it at some time.
>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>
>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>themselves the way they did!!
>
>Maybe but I doubt it.
>People just get tired after a while and move on.

Do you think that any of that got through?

John M. Williams
December 6th 04, 12:24 AM
Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>I think I miss Barry Sullivan the most though. ;-)

We get a lot that are *like* Barry, but none with his heedless
persistence.

Bob Mann
December 6th 04, 01:06 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>
>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>
>>>
>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>bud!!
>>
>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>
>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>
>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>
>Do you think that any of that got through?

Not really.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 6th 04, 01:07 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:24:23 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>I think I miss Barry Sullivan the most though. ;-)
>
>We get a lot that are *like* Barry, but none with his heedless
>persistence.

He was sheer entertainment whether serious or not.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John M. Williams
December 6th 04, 01:19 AM
Bob Mann > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>>
>>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>>bud!!
>>>
>>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>>
>>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>>
>>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>>
>>Do you think that any of that got through?
>
>Not really.

It's a bit like conversing with a Lewis Carroll character.

John M. Williams
December 6th 04, 04:40 AM
Usenet Posting > wrote:
>
>My first rule of Usenet dynamics is that if you post often enough to
>MFW to be a "regular" that you are either emotionally or mentally
>disturbed (or both).

Psychotherapists call that "projection," Mikey.

But I'll bet you've never much liked what psychotherapists told you.

Bob Mann
December 6th 04, 05:10 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:40:59 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Usenet Posting > wrote:
>>
>>My first rule of Usenet dynamics is that if you post often enough to
>>MFW to be a "regular" that you are either emotionally or mentally
>>disturbed (or both).
>
>Psychotherapists call that "projection," Mikey.
>
>But I'll bet you've never much liked what psychotherapists told you.

I call it a hobby but not a very productive one.
Mind you, it did lead to me competing in powerlifting which has led me
to travel to places I might not otherwise have been, meet people I
might otherwise not have met and undergo sugery I might otherwise not
have needed.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Bob Mann
December 6th 04, 05:11 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:19:08 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>>>
>>>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>>>bud!!
>>>>
>>>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>>>
>>>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>>>
>>>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>>>
>>>Do you think that any of that got through?
>>
>>Not really.
>
>It's a bit like conversing with a Lewis Carroll character.

I like that and there are so many from which to choose.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:20 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>
>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>
>>>
>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>bud!!
>>
>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>
>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>
>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>
>Do you think that any of that got through?

I wonder is this interrogative or rhetorical?

Ugh! It's Monday!!

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:24 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:06:22 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>>
>>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>>bud!!
>>>
>>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>>
>>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>>
>>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>>
>>Do you think that any of that got through?
>
>Not really.

Really?

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:25 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:07:02 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:24:23 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>>I think I miss Barry Sullivan the most though. ;-)
>>
>>We get a lot that are *like* Barry, but none with his heedless
>>persistence.
>
>He was sheer entertainment whether serious or not.

They don't make MFW contributors like they used to in the olden days!!

Ugh! It's Monday!!

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:28 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:19:08 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Bob Mann > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>>>
>>>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>>>bud!!
>>>>
>>>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>>>
>>>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>>>
>>>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>>>
>>>Do you think that any of that got through?
>>
>>Not really.
>
>It's a bit like conversing with a Lewis Carroll character.

Which is slightly more cerebral than attempting dialogue with Curly,
Larry and Mo!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:44 AM
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:56:33 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 14:49:34 -0600, Bob Mann >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>
>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>
>>>
>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>bud!!
>>
>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>
>My first rule of Usenet dynamics is that if you post often enough to
>MFW to be a "regular" that you are either emotionally or mentally
>disturbed (or both). The possible exceptions are people who make
>their money off the fitness/supplement industry.
>
>Thus the inevitable trend is toward a group full of nutcases.

A well thought out and commendable summation from an "MFW regular"!!
;o)

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:45 AM
On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 03:57:01 GMT, Usenet Posting
> wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:19:08 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>>>>
>>>>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>>>>bud!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>>>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>>>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>>>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>>>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>>>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think that any of that got through?
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>
>>It's a bit like conversing with a Lewis Carroll character.
>
>HAH, that was actually funny.

He does have his moments, but they are very rare!! ;o)

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

John HUDSON
December 6th 04, 08:56 AM
On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 23:11:57 -0600, Bob Mann >
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 20:19:08 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:18:19 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Bob Mann > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 09:11:29 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>That has been the reason for me staying here. I vowed with the intense
>>>>>>obstinacy and determination of one dedicated to the opposition of
>>>>>>bullying in all its forms, to take on all those bumped up hateful
>>>>>>*******s who got their kicks by banding together and making some poor
>>>>>>bugger's life a misery.
>>>>>
>>>>>The way you came in was guaranteed to cause yourself aggravation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>>>>>leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>>>>>Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>>>>>bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>>>>>on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>>>>>bud!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Jibes are all just a regular part of usenet give and take.
>>>>>Everyone gets it at some time.
>>>>>Blowing the whistle doesn't do much to stop anything unless you
>>>>>succeed in bringing the attention back to yourself.
>>>>>It's all part of usenet dynamics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This more than any other 'dynanamic' may well be the reason why those
>>>>>>former vociferous and manipulative contributors, no longer involve
>>>>>>themselves the way they did!!
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe but I doubt it.
>>>>>People just get tired after a while and move on.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think that any of that got through?
>>>
>>>Not really.
>>
>>It's a bit like conversing with a Lewis Carroll character.
>
>I like that and there are so many from which to choose.

I particularly like the dormouse in the teapot; that has to be Lee
Michaels!! ;o)

Watson Davis
December 7th 04, 06:01 AM
"Jim" > wrote in
:


>
> I toast John toasting..Ive often thought what I would do at a MFW
> event. I'd probably be the most sober sane person there.

So... you're saying that those of us who don't drink aren't sane?

Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

John HUDSON
December 7th 04, 09:23 AM
On 7 Dec 2004 06:01:10 GMT, Watson Davis >
wrote:

>"Jim" > wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>> I toast John toasting..Ive often thought what I would do at a MFW
>> event. I'd probably be the most sober sane person there.
>
>So... you're saying that those of us who don't drink aren't sane?

Any indications of sanity at MFW are as rare as rocking horse ****!!
;o)

Art S
December 7th 04, 04:30 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
> bud!!

?

I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".

I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
to the theory of evolution.

It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.

Art

Lee Michaels
December 7th 04, 04:51 PM
"Art S" > wrote in
>
> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> > I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
> > leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
> > Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
> > bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
> > on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
> > bud!!
>
> ?
>
> I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>
> I feel disappointment. And disgust.

And nausea.

John HUDSON
December 7th 04, 04:53 PM
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:30:17 GMT, "Art S" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
>> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>> bud!!
>
>?
>
>I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>
>I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
>some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
>taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
>to the theory of evolution.

What the **** has that got to do with a bunch of egotistical maniacs
posting to a Usenet newsgroup?

>
>It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
>in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
>better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
>are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.

You do talk a lot of old ******** at times Art, for an otherwise
intelligent chap!!

You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
"disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?

Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
passionately!!

Put your own house in order old chum before you start criticising
others, and stop being so boringly patronising - you know it's like
water off a duck's back!!

Other than that I'm very fond of you, and trust you had a great
weekend at the Laughlin thing!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 7th 04, 05:07 PM
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 11:51:31 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Art S" > wrote in
>>
>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> > I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> > leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> > Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>> > bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>> > on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>> > bud!!
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>>
>> I feel disappointment. And disgust.
>
>And nausea.

I'm not surprised if you are constantly seeing people with "boogers"
hanging out of their snot boxes!! ;o)

John M. Williams
December 7th 04, 05:50 PM
"Art S" > wrote:
>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
>> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>> bud!!
>
>?
>
>I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>
>I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
>some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
>taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
>to the theory of evolution.
>
>It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
>in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
>better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
>are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.

<golf clap>

John HUDSON
December 7th 04, 05:59 PM
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:50:46 -0500, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>"Art S" > wrote:
>>
>>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
>>> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>>> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>>> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>>> bud!!
>>
>>?
>>
>>I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>>
>>I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
>>some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
>>taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
>>to the theory of evolution.
>>
>>It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
>>in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
>>better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
>>are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.
>
><golf clap>

Clap trap more like; what merit do you see in that totally irrational
heap of bull****?

I thought you were brighter than that Williams, yet you still let your
biased emotions cloud your judgment!! ;o)

Watson Davis
December 7th 04, 07:48 PM
"Pat Styles" > wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Bob Mann" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's just it.
>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty,
>> Bill Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane,
>> Adam Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell,
>> Jon Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>> others most of whom you never knew.
>
> I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I
> didn't ;-) I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who
> were before my time, too.

That's the point.

It was way before your time and it was way before my time.

Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

Art S
December 8th 04, 03:58 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:30:17 GMT, "Art S" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> >> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
> >> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
> >> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
> >> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
> >> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
> >> bud!!
> >
> >?
> >
> >I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
> >
> >I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
> >some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
> >taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
> >to the theory of evolution.
>
> What the **** has that got to do with a bunch of egotistical maniacs
> posting to a Usenet newsgroup?
>

That is the category of person that I have placed you in.

> >
> >It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
> >in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
> >better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
> >are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.
>
> You do talk a lot of old ******** at times Art, for an otherwise
> intelligent chap!!
>
> You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
> trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
> "disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?

Nope.

>
> Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
> deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
> you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
> passionately!!

If you were to provide an informative answer to the poster's question I
wouldn't be saying you are promoting ignorance.

But that isn't what you usually do. Instead you usually post something
that amounts to "They're setting you up. Ignore them - I'm your friend.",
which doesn't answer their question AND (as I've posted before)
interferes with the discussion for those who happen to be intelligent
enough - and willing - to learn but are currently ignorant.

>
> Put your own house in order old chum before you start criticising
> others, and stop being so boringly patronising - you know it's like
> water off a duck's back!!

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

>
> Other than that I'm very fond of you, and trust you had a great
> weekend at the Laughlin thing!! ;o)

Very enjoyable.

Except for the wash cloths in Casino hotel, which were almost as
rough as sand paper.

Also enjoyed the trail ride. And thought that the instructions "show
the horse who's boss" were hilarious. The horse I was riding had
the final say. It generally went the direction I wanted to go, but it
only had two speeds: on and off. (It could maintain a higher speed
for a few steps ["see? I know what you want me to do. Now relax."]
- but only if I was bouncing up and down on the saddle. The split
second I took the weight on my feet instead of pretending I was a
sack of flour he slowed right back down. He also knew exactly how
far in back of the horse he was following he wanted to be (it varied,
depending on the horse ahead) and pretty much kept to it.

Art

Pat Styles
December 8th 04, 05:18 AM
"Watson Davis" > wrote in message
2.204...
> "Pat Styles" > wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Bob Mann" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> That's just it.
>>> You weren't here when the DFW crew was posting, Rob, Tim Fogarty,
>>> Bill Roberts, Jess Anderson, Mike Knapik under his own name, Barry
>>> Sullivan, Scott Taylor, Deepsquatter, Sandeep, Bil Greene, Rob
>>> Spector, Brad Kern, Robert Ames, CLC, T. David Bamford, Darcy
>>> Semeniuk, Pat Matteson (did anyone ever hear from him?), Manuel
>>> Makarevitch (RIP), Brian Bucher, Jon Agiato, Mr. Sunshine, Bill
>>> Whedon, Kimberly Weedon, Al Bardo, Dan Duchaine, Paul E. Harvey, Pat
>>> Arnold, Will Brink, Kim Naru, Tree, Lyle, Jorge Pavon, Mike Lane,
>>> Adam Fahy, Krista, Rob Beare, John Wash, Dana Holt, Steve Kidwell,
>>> Jon Grimes, John Williams, Michael Kelly Larson. and a whole host of
>>> others most of whom you never knew.
>>
>> I was going to say it was a great list until I saw Lane made it and I
>> didn't ;-) I remember most of those, but there are a whole lot who
>> were before my time, too.
>
> That's the point.
>
> It was way before your time and it was way before my time.
>
> Watson (the pencil neck) Davis

I don't think so. I recognize over half the names from reading their posts.
Some of them were before my time, but not all of them.
ps

Pat Styles
December 8th 04, 05:19 AM
"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> Michaels and Styles!).

Hm, and yet I just read one of your posts quoted in Steve's reply where you say
I've never let up on you. This seems inconsistent.
ps

Axel of the North!
December 8th 04, 06:02 AM
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:53:37 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:
[to Art]
>You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
>trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
>"disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
>
>Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
>deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
>you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
>passionately!!

Hudson: Protector of the Innocent!

if we coalesced (that's as corporeal as it gets in the Dream World)
into a location that represents MFW and you were pursued for being a
troll i would help to hide you and feed you all the liquor you needed
to survive.

(maybe i'd sell you out to the Dark Queen if she gave me her password
to access the archives of the "New Scientist" website but for the most
part i would help you out)

John HUDSON
December 8th 04, 09:24 AM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 03:58:37 GMT, "Art S" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:30:17 GMT, "Art S" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> >> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> >> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> >> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>> >> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>> >> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>> >> bud!!
>> >
>> >?
>> >
>> >I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>> >
>> >I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
>> >some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
>> >taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
>> >to the theory of evolution.
>>
>> What the **** has that got to do with a bunch of egotistical maniacs
>> posting to a Usenet newsgroup?
>>
>
>That is the category of person that I have placed you in.

Of course you wouldn't recognise yourself, but that is the "category"
we are all in!! ;o)

>
>> >
>> >It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
>> >in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
>> >better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
>> >are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.
>>
>> You do talk a lot of old ******** at times Art, for an otherwise
>> intelligent chap!!
>>
>> You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
>> trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
>> "disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
>
>Nope.

Yep!!

>
>>
>> Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
>> deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
>> you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
>> passionately!!
>
>If you were to provide an informative answer to the poster's question I
>wouldn't be saying you are promoting ignorance.
>
>But that isn't what you usually do. Instead you usually post something
>that amounts to "They're setting you up. Ignore them - I'm your friend.",
>which doesn't answer their question AND (as I've posted before)
>interferes with the discussion for those who happen to be intelligent
>enough - and willing - to learn but are currently ignorant.

It effectively stops a few pricks getting their kicks by bullying
unsuspecting people!!

>
>>
>> Put your own house in order old chum before you start criticising
>> others, and stop being so boringly patronising - you know it's like
>> water off a duck's back!!
>
>I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Given that there are 28 words in the preceding paragraph, to which
particular "word" are you referring?

>
>>
>> Other than that I'm very fond of you, and trust you had a great
>> weekend at the Laughlin thing!! ;o)
>
>Very enjoyable.

Well done! ;o)

>
>Except for the wash cloths in Casino hotel, which were almost as
>rough as sand paper.

Complain to the management, it's to do with poor laundering!!

>
>Also enjoyed the trail ride. And thought that the instructions "show
>the horse who's boss" were hilarious. The horse I was riding had
>the final say. It generally went the direction I wanted to go, but it
>only had two speeds: on and off. (It could maintain a higher speed
>for a few steps ["see? I know what you want me to do. Now relax."]
>- but only if I was bouncing up and down on the saddle. The split
>second I took the weight on my feet instead of pretending I was a
>sack of flour he slowed right back down. He also knew exactly how
>far in back of the horse he was following he wanted to be (it varied,
>depending on the horse ahead) and pretty much kept to it.

Typical 'school' horses, who do the same thing together day in day
out. You'll get no joy from them as they are bored silly and doomed.

The only way to really enjoy riding is as I told Cohen ages ago. You
need to find a chum who keeps horses (or get your own) and then ride
them over free open country. Then you'll experience real exhilaration.

If you were to be able to then hunt or compete in equestrian events
you would really discover the challenge and satisfaction to be derived
from the combination of man and horse.

I'm glad you enjoyed the experience and well done Elzi for thinking of
it and for organising it! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 8th 04, 09:50 AM
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:19:58 -0800, "Pat Styles"
> wrote:

>"Art S" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>>> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>>> Michaels and Styles!).
>
>Hm, and yet I just read one of your posts quoted in Steve's reply where you say
>I've never let up on you. This seems inconsistent.

I think it is consistent when the "the odd juvenile 3rd party jibes"
are all gratuitous (as admitted in your recent post to me) and have
been a regular occurrence and go back over 2.5 years!!

Why are you trying to play the innocent Pat? You'll have the idiot
Michaels suggesting you are whining and bitching if you aren't
careful!! ;o)

John HUDSON
December 8th 04, 09:58 AM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:02:07 GMT, (Axel of the North!)
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:53:37 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>[to Art]
>>You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
>>trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
>>"disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
>>
>>Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
>>deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
>>you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
>>passionately!!
>
>Hudson: Protector of the Innocent!
>
>if we coalesced (that's as corporeal as it gets in the Dream World)
>into a location that represents MFW and you were pursued for being a
>troll i would help to hide you and feed you all the liquor you needed
>to survive.

Why thank you kind Sir; I begin to warm to you again after your recent
journey to Noddy Land, and your subsequent spell of strange
behaviour!! ;o)

>
>(maybe i'd sell you out to the Dark Queen if she gave me her password
>to access the archives of the "New Scientist" website but for the most
>part i would help you out)

I am indeed grateful to you in anticipation!!

Art S
December 8th 04, 04:47 PM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 03:58:37 GMT, "Art S" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:30:17 GMT, "Art S" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
> >> >> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
> >> >> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
> >> >> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
> >> >> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
> >> >> bud!!
> >> >
> >> >?
> >> >
> >> >I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
> >> >
> >> >I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
> >> >some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
> >> >taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
> >> >to the theory of evolution.
> >>
> >> What the **** has that got to do with a bunch of egotistical maniacs
> >> posting to a Usenet newsgroup?
> >>
> >
> >That is the category of person that I have placed you in.
>
> Of course you wouldn't recognise yourself, but that is the "category"
> we are all in!! ;o)

Of promoting ignorance? No, I don't think so.
Of being an egotistical maniac? Well, maybe. At work they just think
I'm nuts.

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
> >> >in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
> >> >better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
> >> >are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.
> >>
> >> You do talk a lot of old ******** at times Art, for an otherwise
> >> intelligent chap!!
> >>
> >> You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
> >> trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
> >> "disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yep!!
>
> >
> >>
> >> Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
> >> deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
> >> you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
> >> passionately!!
> >
> >If you were to provide an informative answer to the poster's question I
> >wouldn't be saying you are promoting ignorance.
> >
> >But that isn't what you usually do. Instead you usually post something
> >that amounts to "They're setting you up. Ignore them - I'm your friend.",
> >which doesn't answer their question AND (as I've posted before)
> >interferes with the discussion for those who happen to be intelligent
> >enough - and willing - to learn but are currently ignorant.
>
> It effectively stops a few pricks getting their kicks by bullying
> unsuspecting people!!

So would providing information answering the question - if the poster
was truly interested in learning instead of asking a question that they
didn't want to hear the answer to. You're taking the easy way out.

>
> >
> >>
> >> Put your own house in order old chum before you start criticising
> >> others, and stop being so boringly patronising - you know it's like
> >> water off a duck's back!!
> >
> >I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>
> Given that there are 28 words in the preceding paragraph, to which
> particular "word" are you referring?

"patronising". I'll accept "boring".

>
> >
> >>
> >> Other than that I'm very fond of you, and trust you had a great
> >> weekend at the Laughlin thing!! ;o)
> >
> >Very enjoyable.
>
> Well done! ;o)
>
> >
> >Except for the wash cloths in Casino hotel, which were almost as
> >rough as sand paper.
>
> Complain to the management, it's to do with poor laundering!!

I think it had to do with starting with sand paper...

>
> >
> >Also enjoyed the trail ride. And thought that the instructions "show
> >the horse who's boss" were hilarious. The horse I was riding had
> >the final say. It generally went the direction I wanted to go, but it
> >only had two speeds: on and off. (It could maintain a higher speed
> >for a few steps ["see? I know what you want me to do. Now relax."]
> >- but only if I was bouncing up and down on the saddle. The split
> >second I took the weight on my feet instead of pretending I was a
> >sack of flour he slowed right back down. He also knew exactly how
> >far in back of the horse he was following he wanted to be (it varied,
> >depending on the horse ahead) and pretty much kept to it.
>
> Typical 'school' horses, who do the same thing together day in day
> out. You'll get no joy from them as they are bored silly and doomed.
>
> The only way to really enjoy riding is as I told Cohen ages ago. You
> need to find a chum who keeps horses (or get your own) and then ride
> them over free open country. Then you'll experience real exhilaration.
>

I don't think I'm ready for that much exhilaration.

> If you were to be able to then hunt or compete in equestrian events
> you would really discover the challenge and satisfaction to be derived
> from the combination of man and horse.
>
> I'm glad you enjoyed the experience and well done Elzi for thinking of
> it and for organising it! ;o)
>

I'll have to consider taking lessons and then going on other types of rides.

Art

Axel of the North!
December 8th 04, 09:10 PM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 09:58:22 +0000, John HUDSON >
wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:02:07 GMT, (Axel of the North!)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:53:37 +0000, John HUDSON >
>>wrote:
>>[to Art]
>>>You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
>>>trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
>>>"disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
>>>
>>>Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
>>>deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
>>>you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
>>>passionately!!
>>
>>Hudson: Protector of the Innocent!
>>
>>if we coalesced (that's as corporeal as it gets in the Dream World)
>>into a location that represents MFW and you were pursued for being a
>>troll i would help to hide you and feed you all the liquor you needed
>>to survive.
>
>Why thank you kind Sir; I begin to warm to you again after your recent
>journey to Noddy Land, and your subsequent spell of strange
>behaviour!! ;o)

look, man: whatever may have happened when i morphed into the Olsen
twins is more a manifestation of what "energy" i've processed in
communion with them than anything else. i know it's not always the
case, and there aren't any enforceable rules per se, but what happens
in the dream world should STAY in the dream world...

>>
>>(maybe i'd sell you out to the Dark Queen if she gave me her password
>>to access the archives of the "New Scientist" website but for the most
>>part i would help you out)
>
>I am indeed grateful to you in anticipation!!

great. so how do you feel about the idea of a mary-jane vagina room? i
was thinking about making a new addition to my floating dream
citadel...

John HUDSON
December 9th 04, 12:20 AM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:47:06 GMT, "Art S" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 03:58:37 GMT, "Art S" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> >> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:30:17 GMT, "Art S" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >> I think it is quite obvious that I have succeeded, as those people now
>> >> >> leave me well alone (apart from the odd juvenile 3rd party jibe from
>> >> >> Michaels and Styles!). It also means that those people are unable to
>> >> >> bully any newcomers to the group, as I very quickly blow the whistle
>> >> >> on them (much to Art's chagrin), which nips their activities in the
>> >> >> bud!!
>> >> >
>> >> >?
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't feel chagrin when you "blow the whistle".
>> >> >
>> >> >I feel disappointment. And disgust. The same as when I learned that
>> >> >some of the school boards were trying to prevent evolution from being
>> >> >taught or require that the "Theory of Genesis" be taught as an alternative
>> >> >to the theory of evolution.
>> >>
>> >> What the **** has that got to do with a bunch of egotistical maniacs
>> >> posting to a Usenet newsgroup?
>> >>
>> >
>> >That is the category of person that I have placed you in.
>>
>> Of course you wouldn't recognise yourself, but that is the "category"
>> we are all in!! ;o)
>
>Of promoting ignorance? No, I don't think so.
>Of being an egotistical maniac? Well, maybe. At work they just think
>I'm nuts.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >It is what I feel whenever I see someone actively promoting ignorance
>> >> >in someone else. Well, stronger in your case because you claim to know
>> >> >better and the members of the school boards actually believe what they
>> >> >are trying to have taught, so you don't have their excuse.
>> >>
>> >> You do talk a lot of old ******** at times Art, for an otherwise
>> >> intelligent chap!!
>> >>
>> >> You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
>> >> trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
>> >> "disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
>> >
>> >Nope.
>>
>> Yep!!
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
>> >> deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
>> >> you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
>> >> passionately!!
>> >
>> >If you were to provide an informative answer to the poster's question I
>> >wouldn't be saying you are promoting ignorance.
>> >
>> >But that isn't what you usually do. Instead you usually post something
>> >that amounts to "They're setting you up. Ignore them - I'm your friend.",
>> >which doesn't answer their question AND (as I've posted before)
>> >interferes with the discussion for those who happen to be intelligent
>> >enough - and willing - to learn but are currently ignorant.
>>
>> It effectively stops a few pricks getting their kicks by bullying
>> unsuspecting people!!
>
>So would providing information answering the question - if the poster
>was truly interested in learning instead of asking a question that they
>didn't want to hear the answer to. You're taking the easy way out.

Why would any newcomer, who knows nothing about as, ask "a question
that they didn't want to hear the answer to"?!!

They certainly don't want to be bullied or be ridiculed for the
entertainment of a few pricks here!!

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Put your own house in order old chum before you start criticising
>> >> others, and stop being so boringly patronising - you know it's like
>> >> water off a duck's back!!
>> >
>> >I don't think that word means what you think it means.
>>
>> Given that there are 28 words in the preceding paragraph, to which
>> particular "word" are you referring?
>
>"patronising". I'll accept "boring".

Given your choice of two, they both mean exactly what I meant them to
mean!!

>> >>
>> >> Other than that I'm very fond of you, and trust you had a great
>> >> weekend at the Laughlin thing!! ;o)
>> >
>> >Very enjoyable.
>>
>> Well done! ;o)
>>
>> >
>> >Except for the wash cloths in Casino hotel, which were almost as
>> >rough as sand paper.
>>
>> Complain to the management, it's to do with poor laundering!!
>
>I think it had to do with starting with sand paper...
>
>>
>> >
>> >Also enjoyed the trail ride. And thought that the instructions "show
>> >the horse who's boss" were hilarious. The horse I was riding had
>> >the final say. It generally went the direction I wanted to go, but it
>> >only had two speeds: on and off. (It could maintain a higher speed
>> >for a few steps ["see? I know what you want me to do. Now relax."]
>> >- but only if I was bouncing up and down on the saddle. The split
>> >second I took the weight on my feet instead of pretending I was a
>> >sack of flour he slowed right back down. He also knew exactly how
>> >far in back of the horse he was following he wanted to be (it varied,
>> >depending on the horse ahead) and pretty much kept to it.
>>
>> Typical 'school' horses, who do the same thing together day in day
>> out. You'll get no joy from them as they are bored silly and doomed.
>>
>> The only way to really enjoy riding is as I told Cohen ages ago. You
>> need to find a chum who keeps horses (or get your own) and then ride
>> them over free open country. Then you'll experience real exhilaration.
>>
>
>I don't think I'm ready for that much exhilaration.
>
>> If you were to be able to then hunt or compete in equestrian events
>> you would really discover the challenge and satisfaction to be derived
>> from the combination of man and horse.
>>
>> I'm glad you enjoyed the experience and well done Elzi for thinking of
>> it and for organising it! ;o)
>>
>
>I'll have to consider taking lessons and then going on other types of rides.

That I would heartily recommend!! ;o)

Kevin J
December 12th 04, 07:43 AM
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:02:07 GMT, (Axel of the North!)
wrote:

>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 16:53:37 +0000, John HUDSON >
>wrote:
>[to Art]
>>You are miffed because I **** up you and a few of your chums when
>>trying to give newbies the ****s!! Has it occurred to you that you
>>"disappoint" and "disgust" others here because you do that?
>>
>>Are you aware that you are "promoting ignorance" when you support the
>>deliberately baiting of unsuspecting people? I actually believe that
>>you and a few of your cohorts are bullies - and I despise bullies
>>passionately!!
>
>Hudson: Protector of the Innocent!
>
>if we coalesced (that's as corporeal as it gets in the Dream World)
>into a location that represents MFW and you were pursued for being a
>troll i would help to hide you and feed you all the liquor you needed
>to survive.
>
>(maybe i'd sell you out to the Dark Queen if she gave me her password
>to access the archives of the "New Scientist" website but for the most
>part i would help you out)

I can't do New Scientist, but I can get you access to Scientific
American, Nature Neuroscience, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Neuron,
and Nature Methods with my subscriptions. Oh yeah, and The
Economist, but that's not a science mag. In exchange, I want in to
the journals I can't get.

Too bad none of these are accessible via Sciencedirect. The costs are
more than I should be spending on diversions anyway.

I just got a thing in the mail today for New Scientist though, thought
about subscribing . . a good mag?


--
kj