PDA

View Full Version : So where's the thread that Lucas...


John Hanson
January 14th 05, 11:13 AM
is "harassing" Wendy?

The Queen of Cans and Jars
January 14th 05, 02:36 PM
John Hanson > wrote:

> is "harassing" Wendy?

I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.

Delenn
January 14th 05, 02:42 PM
The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>
>>is "harassing" Wendy?
>
>
> I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.

Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
or a ****ing ****.

Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
spotting sociopaths.

W.

Night
January 14th 05, 02:47 PM
Delenn > wrote in message
...
> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> >
> >
> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>
> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
> or a ****ing ****.
>
> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> spotting sociopaths.
>
> W.

sociopaths?

puhleeze.

talk about histrionics.

somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH

that's absurd

whit

>

John HUDSON
January 14th 05, 03:28 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:42:36 -0500, Delenn > wrote:

>The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> John Hanson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>
>>
>> I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>
>Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>or a ****ing ****.
>
>Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>spotting sociopaths.

Oh come on Wendy, you like me really. I'm only rude to you sometimes
because you told me to be!! ;o)

I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of what goes on here, as most of
my family and work colleagues know all about MFW - because I tell them
and show them.

They do think I'm a little eccentric for being involved, but this
group has been the star attraction at many of my social functions, and
at work, and I am often asked for updates on some of the 'central'
characters.

John Williams, who used to post here, was a particular favourite and
the girls in the typing pool had some of his photo's on the peg board
in their office. They just loved his dopey moustache and his 'odd'
poses. Willy Brink is another favourite and Lee Michaels has them in
stitches.

In fact during one lunch-time BBQ a couple of years ago, my family and
friends were fascinated as JW and I swapped foul exchanges live before
their very eyes. They thought my oafish retorts were an absolute hoot.
It was even funnier as I told Williams what was happening, and credit
to him, he rose to the occasion magnificently.

My dear wife loves to hear the latest news and absolutely rocks with
laughter at some of the antics.

So what's there to be ashamed about? This Group is an absolute riot
and I love it!! ;o)

We all love it, so we're probably a little obsessed and find it hard
to stay away. Give the "sociopaths" regular kicks in the ********, and
make "****s" of *them*. They'll soon lose interest and find easier
targets for their sick little games.

So calm down old girl, stop worrying and have a nice weekend - you
know I will!! ;o)

If you want a laugh have a look at '**** Buck's' .jpeg at:

http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm

TFIF!!

Keith Hobman
January 14th 05, 03:33 PM
In article et>, "Night"
> wrote:

> Delenn > wrote in message
> ...
> > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > > John Hanson > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
> >
> > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
> > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
> > or a ****ing ****.
> >
> > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> > spotting sociopaths.
> >
> > W.
>
> sociopaths?
>
> puhleeze.
>
> talk about histrionics.
>
> somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
> argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>
> that's absurd

Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.

He is a raging raidiopath.

Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.

John HUDSON
January 14th 05, 03:34 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
wrote:

>
>Delenn > wrote in message
...
>> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>
>> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>> or a ****ing ****.
>>
>> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> spotting sociopaths.
>>
>> W.
>
>sociopaths?
>
>puhleeze.
>
>talk about histrionics.
>
>somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>
>that's absurd

Such behaviour certainly doesn't depict them very favourably, and
there must be a very fine line between our 'misfits' and the *real*
thing!!

"so·ci·o·path
n.
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial
behavior.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

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

TFIF!!

Zap
January 14th 05, 03:35 PM
In article >,
(Keith Hobman) wrote:

> In article et>, "Night"
> > wrote:
>
> > Delenn > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > > > John Hanson > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
> > >
> > > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> > > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
> > > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
> > > or a ****ing ****.
> > >
> > > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> > > spotting sociopaths.
> > >
> > > W.
> >
> > sociopaths?
> >
> > puhleeze.
> >
> > talk about histrionics.
> >
> > somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
> > argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
> >
> > that's absurd
>
> Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
>
> He is a raging raidiopath.
>
> Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.

I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user names.
Just a test.

The Queen of Cans and Jars
January 14th 05, 03:37 PM
Delenn > wrote:

> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> >
> >
> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>
> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
> or a ****ing ****.

I never even noticed that he'd changed his attribution line. It's
buried in the middle of a hugely convoluted thread - who, exactly, do
you think is going to take the time to wade through it all to figure out
what's going on if all they want is someone to do their taxes? If they
ever get that far in the first place. Peter made an excellent post on
this very subject - I hope you read it.

And people harrass you because you respond to it so satisfactorily.
Stop making such a lovely target of yourself.

> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> spotting sociopaths.

I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is how you
respond.

John HUDSON
January 14th 05, 03:59 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:37:10 GMT, (The Queen of
Cans and Jars) wrote:

>Delenn > wrote:
>
>> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>
>> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>> or a ****ing ****.
>
>I never even noticed that he'd changed his attribution line. It's
>buried in the middle of a hugely convoluted thread - who, exactly, do
>you think is going to take the time to wade through it all to figure out
>what's going on if all they want is someone to do their taxes? If they
>ever get that far in the first place. Peter made an excellent post on
>this very subject - I hope you read it.
>
>And people harrass you because you respond to it so satisfactorily.
>Stop making such a lovely target of yourself.
>
>> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> spotting sociopaths.
>
>I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is how you
>respond.

You have to be aware of the symptoms before you can effect a remedy my
dear!!

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

TFIF!!

John Hanson
January 14th 05, 03:59 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:36:35 GMT, (The Queen of
Cans and Jars) wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote:
>
>> is "harassing" Wendy?
>
>I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.

****. How did I miss that one? Last I had looked, there were about
15 posts. Now there are 283.

Lester Long
January 14th 05, 04:53 PM
"Zap" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Keith Hobman) wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
"Night"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Delenn > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > > > > John Hanson > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> > > > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
since
> > > > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a
liar
> > > > or a ****ing ****.
> > > >
> > > > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> > > > spotting sociopaths.
> > > >
> > > > W.
> > >
> > > sociopaths?
> > >
> > > puhleeze.
> > >
> > > talk about histrionics.
> > >
> > > somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
> > > argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
> > >
> > > that's absurd
> >
> > Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
> >
> > He is a raging raidiopath.
> >
> > Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.
>
> I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user names.
> Just a test.

Warning: Keith=Zap.

Regards,
Lester, who is harassing you

Zap
January 14th 05, 05:04 PM
In article et>, "Lester
Long" > wrote:

> "Zap" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > (Keith Hobman) wrote:
> >
> > > In article et>,
> "Night"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Delenn > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > > > > > John Hanson > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> > > > > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
> since
> > > > > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a
> liar
> > > > > or a ****ing ****.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> > > > > spotting sociopaths.
> > > > >
> > > > > W.
> > > >
> > > > sociopaths?
> > > >
> > > > puhleeze.
> > > >
> > > > talk about histrionics.
> > > >
> > > > somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
> > > > argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
> > > >
> > > > that's absurd
> > >
> > > Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
> > >
> > > He is a raging raidiopath.
> > >
> > > Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.
> >
> > I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user names.
> > Just a test.
>
> Warning: Keith=Zap.
>
> Regards,
> Lester, who is harassing you

I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
that what gave me away?

Tigger
January 14th 05, 05:05 PM
In article >,
(Zap) wrote:

> In article et>, "Lester
> Long" > wrote:
>
> > "Zap" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > (Keith Hobman) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article et>,
> > "Night"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Delenn > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > > > > > > John Hanson > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> > > > > > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
> > since
> > > > > > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a
> > liar
> > > > > > or a ****ing ****.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> > > > > > spotting sociopaths.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > W.
> > > > >
> > > > > sociopaths?
> > > > >
> > > > > puhleeze.
> > > > >
> > > > > talk about histrionics.
> > > > >
> > > > > somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
> > > > > argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
> > > > >
> > > > > that's absurd
> > > >
> > > > Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
> > > >
> > > > He is a raging raidiopath.
> > > >
> > > > Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.
> > >
> > > I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user names.
> > > Just a test.
> >
> > Warning: Keith=Zap.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lester, who is harassing you
>
> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
> that what gave me away?

Here Lester, this one is tougher...

Lee Michaels
January 14th 05, 05:08 PM
"Zap" > wrote
>
> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
> that what gave me away?

Just a hint for you Keith,

Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have a
difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.

Tigger
January 14th 05, 05:14 PM
In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

> "Zap" > wrote
> >
> > I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
> > that what gave me away?
>
> Just a hint for you Keith,
>
> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have a
> difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.

I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away from MFW.
My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin and did a search
on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.

I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.

Tigger = Zap = Keith

But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such panache and
verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm more like Tigger.

:^)

Delenn
January 14th 05, 05:22 PM
John HUDSON wrote:

> I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of what goes on here, as most of
> my family and work colleagues know all about MFW - because I tell them
> and show them.

I'm not sure why everyone is keying on this so much. I don't care that
my pictures are up, my husband knows about this, my daughter knows about
this, I know people IRL on these groups, half my clients see me naked in
the lcokerroom at the Y...

I'm ****ed because the ONE LEVEL of discretion I asked for has been
destroyed maliciously specifically because I asked for it.

You can debate all you want about whether the level of discretion I
asked for is a good one or not, but the fact is, it's the level I was
comfortable with and was manageable.

I got on usenet in 1994 using an account at my university. I don't
think ANYONE predicted 20 year google archives. When I got to a point
where I wanted to compartmentalize a bit more I got a different name, a
different newsfeed, a different email account... it wasn't to HIDE, just
to compartmentalize.

All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by
having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't even
reply to it.

It really doesn't matter if you understand this or agree with it. The
point is, Buck understood it. And since he cherishes anonymity he knew
full well what he was destroying in me.

W.

Delenn
January 14th 05, 05:29 PM
Tigger wrote:

> But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such panache and
> verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm more like Tigger.

The wonderful thing about Tiggers are that Tiggers are wonderful things.

But I want to know more about those springs.

W.

BeenThere
January 14th 05, 05:37 PM
Zap at said:

> (Keith Hobman) wrote:
>>
>> Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
>>
>> He is a raging raidiopath.
>>
>> Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.
>
> I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user names.
> Just a test.

Oooh, me too, me too, I like it.

BT

John HUDSON
January 14th 05, 05:56 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Zap" > wrote
>>
>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
>> that what gave me away?
>
>Just a hint for you Keith,
>
>Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have a
>difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.

Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)

You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great weekend
Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
that is!) ;o)

TFIF!!

Al
January 14th 05, 06:14 PM
Tigger wrote:
> In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Zap" > wrote
>>>
>>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>>
>> Just a hint for you Keith,
>>
>> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>
> I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
> from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
> and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>
> I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>
> Tigger = Zap = Keith
>
> But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
> panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
> more like Tigger.
>
> :^)

One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
depends how anonymous you want to be . . .

--
Al

geek_girl
January 14th 05, 06:46 PM
Delenn wrote:
> All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by

> having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't
even
> reply to it.

That is NOT what I've been saying. You still haven't learned to read. I
didn't say that you were asking to be *****ed*, I was pointing out that
you could already be *found*, and quite easily. Yes, he took away one
small layer of protection, one that as I said would only change things
by a few seconds. Yes, it was wrong and he shouldn't have done it
(which I've also already said several times, but apparently you only
read the parts you want to) but it's not that big a deal, and getting
your revenge would make you about 10 times worse than he is.

Lee Michaels
January 14th 05, 07:14 PM
"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:22:11 -0500, Delenn > wrote:
>
> >John HUDSON wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of what goes on here, as most of
> >> my family and work colleagues know all about MFW - because I tell them
> >> and show them.
> >
> >I'm not sure why everyone is keying on this so much. I don't care that
> >my pictures are up, my husband knows about this, my daughter knows about
> >this, I know people IRL on these groups, half my clients see me naked in
> >the lcokerroom at the Y...
> >
> >I'm ****ed because the ONE LEVEL of discretion I asked for has been
> >destroyed maliciously specifically because I asked for it.
> >
> >You can debate all you want about whether the level of discretion I
> >asked for is a good one or not, but the fact is, it's the level I was
> >comfortable with and was manageable.
> >
> >I got on usenet in 1994 using an account at my university. I don't
> >think ANYONE predicted 20 year google archives. When I got to a point
> >where I wanted to compartmentalize a bit more I got a different name, a
> >different newsfeed, a different email account... it wasn't to HIDE, just
> >to compartmentalize.
> >
> >All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by
> >having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't even
> >reply to it.
> >
> >It really doesn't matter if you understand this or agree with it. The
> >point is, Buck understood it. And since he cherishes anonymity he knew
> >full well what he was destroying in me.
>
> You're feeling hurt and vulnerable and it's understandable and I
> sympathise with you. However, as the old adage has it: "least said
> soonest mended."
>
> It appears that the days of 'letting it all hang out' at MFW are
> coming to an end. It seems that John Williams, who used to post here,
> was wrong and that a degree of anonymity is perhaps not as dreadful as
> he used to demand it was.
>
> It is likely that I shall revert to Charles PONSONBY Esq ere long. If
> Keith Hobman thinks it's a wise move, that's good enough for me. (Lee
> will be livid with that!!)
>
You are truly a ledgend in your own mind. I couldn't care less.

It takes far less time to killfile you than to write this.

Delenn
January 14th 05, 07:17 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> It takes far less time to killfile you than to write this.

One of my problems (and I'm sure others will jump to enumerate the rest)
is that I don't have a decent kill-file on this reader. I miss my old TIN!)

W.

Charles PONSONBY Esq
January 14th 05, 07:38 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:14:00 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:22:11 -0500, Delenn > wrote:
>>
>> >John HUDSON wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of what goes on here, as most of
>> >> my family and work colleagues know all about MFW - because I tell them
>> >> and show them.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure why everyone is keying on this so much. I don't care that
>> >my pictures are up, my husband knows about this, my daughter knows about
>> >this, I know people IRL on these groups, half my clients see me naked in
>> >the lcokerroom at the Y...
>> >
>> >I'm ****ed because the ONE LEVEL of discretion I asked for has been
>> >destroyed maliciously specifically because I asked for it.
>> >
>> >You can debate all you want about whether the level of discretion I
>> >asked for is a good one or not, but the fact is, it's the level I was
>> >comfortable with and was manageable.
>> >
>> >I got on usenet in 1994 using an account at my university. I don't
>> >think ANYONE predicted 20 year google archives. When I got to a point
>> >where I wanted to compartmentalize a bit more I got a different name, a
>> >different newsfeed, a different email account... it wasn't to HIDE, just
>> >to compartmentalize.
>> >
>> >All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by
>> >having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't even
>> >reply to it.
>> >
>> >It really doesn't matter if you understand this or agree with it. The
>> >point is, Buck understood it. And since he cherishes anonymity he knew
>> >full well what he was destroying in me.
>>
>> You're feeling hurt and vulnerable and it's understandable and I
>> sympathise with you. However, as the old adage has it: "least said
>> soonest mended."
>>
>> It appears that the days of 'letting it all hang out' at MFW are
>> coming to an end. It seems that John Williams, who used to post here,
>> was wrong and that a degree of anonymity is perhaps not as dreadful as
>> he used to demand it was.
>>
>> It is likely that I shall revert to Charles PONSONBY Esq ere long. If
>> Keith Hobman thinks it's a wise move, that's good enough for me. (Lee
>> will be livid with that!!)
>>
>You are truly a ledgend in your own mind. I couldn't care less.

I think you do really, you old rascal, or why bother to respond?

>
>It takes far less time to killfile you than to write this.

Well that's fine Lee and the status quo is retrieved, but why do you
find it necessary to announce it publicly. I mean who really gives a
**** - certainly not me!!

It's like being savaged by a dead sheep!! ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!!

JH

Lester Long
January 14th 05, 09:03 PM
"Tigger" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Zap) wrote:
>
> > In article et>,
"Lester
> > Long" > wrote:
> >
> > > "Zap" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,

> > > > (Keith Hobman) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article et>,
> > > "Night"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Delenn > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> > > > > > > > John Hanson > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes"
thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact,
just
> > > > > > > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing
me,
> > > since
> > > > > > > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling
me a
> > > liar
> > > > > > > or a ****ing ****.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive
about
> > > > > > > spotting sociopaths.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > W.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sociopaths?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > puhleeze.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > talk about histrionics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake
of
> > > > > > argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that's absurd
> > > > >
> > > > > Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland
Raiders.
> > > > >
> > > > > He is a raging raidiopath.
> > > > >
> > > > > Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.
> > > >
> > > > I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user
names.
> > > > Just a test.
> > >
> > > Warning: Keith=Zap.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Lester, who is harassing you
> >
> > I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
> > that what gave me away?
>
> Here Lester, this one is tougher...

LOL....yeah, Keith....you got me...

:)

Regards,
not-Lester

Pat Styles
January 14th 05, 09:58 PM
"Keith Hobman" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>, "Night"
> > wrote:
>
>> Delenn > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> > > John Hanson > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>> >
>> > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>> > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>> > or a ****ing ****.
>> >
>> > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> > spotting sociopaths.
>> >
>> > W.
>>
>> sociopaths?
>>
>> puhleeze.
>>
>> talk about histrionics.
>>
>> somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>> argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>>
>> that's absurd
>
> Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
>
> He is a raging raidiopath.
>
> Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.

lol
ps

-- I'll drive a little Honda hybrid when the Third World stops having babies.
David Cohen

Nina
January 14th 05, 10:02 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
wrote:

>
>Delenn > wrote in message
...
>> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> >
>> >
>> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>
>> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>> or a ****ing ****.
>>
>> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> spotting sociopaths.
>>
>> W.
>
>sociopaths?
>
>puhleeze.
>
>talk about histrionics.
>
>somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH

Wow, then I guess both of my brother are sociopaths. Plus (almost)
every guy I've ever dated.

Although if you knew some of the men I dated, "stupid ****" might be
the nicest thing you'd say about me. :)

Cheers,
Nina
Adding nothing of interest to the discussion. Move along.
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Tigger
January 14th 05, 11:17 PM
In article <[email protected]>, "Al" > wrote:

> Tigger wrote:
> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Zap" > wrote
> >>>
> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
> >>
> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
> >>
> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> >
> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
> >
> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
> >
> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
> >
> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
> > more like Tigger.
> >
> > :^)
>
> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .

Good point.

JMW
January 14th 05, 11:54 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote:
>>
>> It appears that the days of 'letting it all hang out' at MFW are
>> coming to an end. It seems that John Williams, who used to post here,
>> was wrong and that a degree of anonymity is perhaps not as dreadful as
>> he used to demand it was.
>>
>> It is likely that I shall revert to Charles PONSONBY Esq ere long. If
>> Keith Hobman thinks it's a wise move, that's good enough for me. (Lee
>> will be livid with that!!)
>>
>You are truly a ledgend in your own mind. I couldn't care less.

Let the old fool pat himself on the back, Lee. Nobody else is going
to do it for him.
--

No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
transcendental state is purely coincidental.

Delenn
January 14th 05, 11:56 PM
DZ wrote:

> Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
> nickname in one post, like you did just recently.

I don't recall Hanson doing that. And it's not like I would have
forgotten.

All I ask is that you don't put my first name and my last name with my
nicknames. I'm not picky about first names, just leave my last name
entirely out of it. Please. I share that name with too many other people.

> But I can't recall
> any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.

Swarming. Yup, good description.

W.

Charles
January 15th 05, 12:06 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:54:21 -0500, JMW > wrote:

>"Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>>
>>"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that the days of 'letting it all hang out' at MFW are
>>> coming to an end. It seems that John Williams, who used to post here,
>>> was wrong and that a degree of anonymity is perhaps not as dreadful as
>>> he used to demand it was.
>>>
>>> It is likely that I shall revert to Charles PONSONBY Esq ere long. If
>>> Keith Hobman thinks it's a wise move, that's good enough for me. (Lee
>>> will be livid with that!!)
>>>
>>You are truly a ledgend in your own mind. I couldn't care less.
>
>Let the old fool pat himself on the back, Lee. Nobody else is going
>to do it for him.

Duly "patted" MWJ and basking in the afterglow of a job well done!!

You seem to be taking a lot of interest in me you little bugger, your
not a homo are you?!!

I must ask you again old chap (or chappess) - who the **** are you?

HAGW!!

Lee Michaels
January 15th 05, 01:45 AM
"Delenn" wrote

> DZ wrote:
>
> > Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
> > nickname in one post, like you did just recently.
>
> I don't recall Hanson doing that. And it's not like I would have
> forgotten.
>
> All I ask is that you don't put my first name and my last name with my
> nicknames. I'm not picky about first names, just leave my last name
> entirely out of it. Please. I share that name with too many other
people.
>
> > But I can't recall
> > any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>
> Swarming. Yup, good description.
>
Ya mean like fireants?

Lee Michaels
January 15th 05, 02:03 AM
"Nina" purred

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Delenn > wrote in message
> ...
> >> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
> >> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
> >>
> >> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
> >> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
since
> >> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
> >> or a ****ing ****.
> >>
> >> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
> >> spotting sociopaths.
> >>
> >> W.
> >
> >sociopaths?
> >
> >puhleeze.
> >
> >talk about histrionics.
> >
> >somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
> >argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>
> Wow, then I guess both of my brother are sociopaths. Plus (almost)
> every guy I've ever dated.
>
> Although if you knew some of the men I dated, "stupid ****" might be
> the nicest thing you'd say about me. :)
>

Stupid ****s and sociopaths!!

Sound like my kind of crowd!!

Now you are all settled down with a metrosexual and gonna get your head all
wired - rubber banded up.

What happened to you Nina??

We had such hopes for you!!

Lee Michaels
January 15th 05, 02:05 AM
"Tigger" > wrote in

> In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
wrote:
>
> > Tigger wrote:
> > > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Zap" > wrote
> > >>>
> > >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
> > >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
> > >>
> > >> Just a hint for you Keith,
> > >>
> > >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
> > >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> > >
> > > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
> > > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
> > > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
> > >
> > > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
> > >
> > > Tigger = Zap = Keith
> > >
> > > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
> > > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
> > > more like Tigger.
> > >
> > > :^)
> >
> > One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
> > though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
> > depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>
> Good point.

Maybe Whitney could write up a little manual for this sort of thing.

"Cept he can't edit or capitalize.

Instig
January 15th 05, 02:39 AM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tigger" > wrote in
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
> wrote:
>>
>> > Tigger wrote:
>> > > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> "Zap" > wrote
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>> > >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>> > >>
>> > >> Just a hint for you Keith,
>> > >>
>> > >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>> > >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> > >
>> > > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>> > > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>> > > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>> > >
>> > > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>> > >
>> > > Tigger = Zap = Keith
>> > >
>> > > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>> > > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>> > > more like Tigger.
>> > >
>> > > :^)
>> >
>> > One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
>> > though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>> > depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>>
>> Good point.
>
> Maybe Whitney could write up a little manual for this sort of thing.
>
> "Cept he can't edit or capitalize.
>
>

of course not. i'll just fill it with insightful, poetic and prophetic
prose and that will have to be enough.

like always. :)

whit

>

Instig
January 15th 05, 02:43 AM
"Tigger" > wrote in message
...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
> wrote:
>
>> Tigger wrote:
>> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Zap" > wrote
>> >>>
>> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>> >>
>> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
>> >>
>> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> >
>> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>> >
>> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>> >
>> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
>> >
>> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>> > more like Tigger.
>> >
>> > :^)
>>
>> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
>> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>
> Good point.

i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one tigger.

that is viki

you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she is

whit

John Hanson
January 15th 05, 02:44 AM
On 14 Jan 2005 23:38:34 GMT, DZ
> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote:
>> is "harassing" Wendy?
>
>It's that way ___________^
>
>Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>nickname in one post, like you did just recently. But I can't recall
>any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>
I did? I wasn't even trying. I'm still a little upset that nobody
noticed that I indirectly claimed to be the hot stud who ****ed her
when she was in college.

Lee Michaels
January 15th 05, 02:45 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On 14 Jan 2005 23:38:34 GMT, DZ
> > wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >John Hanson > wrote:
> >> is "harassing" Wendy?
> >
> >It's that way ___________^
> >
> >Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
> >nickname in one post, like you did just recently. But I can't recall
> >any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
> >
> I did? I wasn't even trying. I'm still a little upset that nobody
> noticed that I indirectly claimed to be the hot stud who ****ed her
> when she was in college.
>

Sorry John, you say that about all the girls.

We didn't notice.

Instig
January 15th 05, 02:49 AM
"Nina" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Delenn > wrote in message
...
>>> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>>
>>> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>>> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>>> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>>> or a ****ing ****.
>>>
>>> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>>> spotting sociopaths.
>>>
>>> W.
>>
>>sociopaths?
>>
>>puhleeze.
>>
>>talk about histrionics.
>>
>>somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>>argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>
> Wow, then I guess both of my brother are sociopaths. Plus (almost)
> every guy I've ever dated.
>
> Although if you knew some of the men I dated, "stupid ****" might be
> the nicest thing you'd say about me. :)
>

i wouldn't

i draw the line at the "C" word. i would never call a woman the "C" word,
or more correctly no woman has ever deserved that moniker and i hope i never
meet one that does

that's like the "N" word for women, and that's a word i've never used
towards anybody either

but i am sure i could find some kinder and gentler insults to poke you with
if the opportunity presents itself

btw, on a business note...

i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?) diva
spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say anything to
jeapardize your cash cow but...

lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.

they are not even in the same league

hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan will be
the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up, or
scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something

the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a bit of
in front of the camera and stage work myself

no comparison

lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind lindsey

sorry hillary. love ya anyways.

whit

John Hanson
January 15th 05, 03:20 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:45:30 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On 14 Jan 2005 23:38:34 GMT, DZ
>> > wrote in
>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >John Hanson > wrote:
>> >> is "harassing" Wendy?
>> >
>> >It's that way ___________^
>> >
>> >Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>> >nickname in one post, like you did just recently. But I can't recall
>> >any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>> >
>> I did? I wasn't even trying. I'm still a little upset that nobody
>> noticed that I indirectly claimed to be the hot stud who ****ed her
>> when she was in college.
>>
>
>Sorry John, you say that about all the girls.

Yeah, right. The Andrew Dice Clay thing.

>
>We didn't notice.
>
Different deal. This one was camouflaged.

BTW, I had a ****ty deadlift night tonight. I don't have a "good"
deadlift suit but I do use one and wore the one I lifted in at Masters
after warming up to 425. Anywho, I've been experimenting with my
setup and that, the suit, combined with the 465 on the bar, caused me
to fall over backwards. I've never done that before. I had been
planning on doing 485 for my last lift so I quickly decided to do 465
right away before anyone went again. I waited about a minute and then
pulled it legally but not without difficulty.

I then did a couple of down sets with the last one at 405 for 3
singles. Every damned one of them pulled different. I'm ****ed!
I've got less than a month to go before State and probably only 10 -15
pounds better than I was at the TCO four and a half months ago. The
hand placement thingy didn't help either.

<Not Dally...but depressed (still being an attention seeking,
politically correct, crybaby)>

Lee Michaels
January 15th 05, 03:22 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:45:30 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 14 Jan 2005 23:38:34 GMT, DZ
> >> > wrote in
> >> misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >John Hanson > wrote:
> >> >> is "harassing" Wendy?
> >> >
> >> >It's that way ___________^
> >> >
> >> >Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
> >> >nickname in one post, like you did just recently. But I can't recall
> >> >any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
> >> >
> >> I did? I wasn't even trying. I'm still a little upset that nobody
> >> noticed that I indirectly claimed to be the hot stud who ****ed her
> >> when she was in college.
> >>
> >
> >Sorry John, you say that about all the girls.
>
> Yeah, right. The Andrew Dice Clay thing.
>
> >
> >We didn't notice.
> >
> Different deal. This one was camouflaged.
>
> BTW, I had a ****ty deadlift night tonight. I don't have a "good"
> deadlift suit but I do use one and wore the one I lifted in at Masters
> after warming up to 425. Anywho, I've been experimenting with my
> setup and that, the suit, combined with the 465 on the bar, caused me
> to fall over backwards. I've never done that before. I had been
> planning on doing 485 for my last lift so I quickly decided to do 465
> right away before anyone went again. I waited about a minute and then
> pulled it legally but not without difficulty.
>
> I then did a couple of down sets with the last one at 405 for 3
> singles. Every damned one of them pulled different. I'm ****ed!
> I've got less than a month to go before State and probably only 10 -15
> pounds better than I was at the TCO four and a half months ago. The
> hand placement thingy didn't help either.
>
> <Not Dally...but depressed (still being an attention seeking,
> politically correct, crybaby)>

John, I am no expert on this kind of thing.

But did you come up with a reason for falling over backwards?

Something is happening here. You better find it and nail it down. Before
this progresses into who knows what.

Can any of your buddies help?

John Hanson
January 15th 05, 03:38 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:22:36 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:45:30 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On 14 Jan 2005 23:38:34 GMT, DZ
>> >> > wrote in
>> >> misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >John Hanson > wrote:
>> >> >> is "harassing" Wendy?
>> >> >
>> >> >It's that way ___________^
>> >> >
>> >> >Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>> >> >nickname in one post, like you did just recently. But I can't recall
>> >> >any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>> >> >
>> >> I did? I wasn't even trying. I'm still a little upset that nobody
>> >> noticed that I indirectly claimed to be the hot stud who ****ed her
>> >> when she was in college.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Sorry John, you say that about all the girls.
>>
>> Yeah, right. The Andrew Dice Clay thing.
>>
>> >
>> >We didn't notice.
>> >
>> Different deal. This one was camouflaged.
>>
>> BTW, I had a ****ty deadlift night tonight. I don't have a "good"
>> deadlift suit but I do use one and wore the one I lifted in at Masters
>> after warming up to 425. Anywho, I've been experimenting with my
>> setup and that, the suit, combined with the 465 on the bar, caused me
>> to fall over backwards. I've never done that before. I had been
>> planning on doing 485 for my last lift so I quickly decided to do 465
>> right away before anyone went again. I waited about a minute and then
>> pulled it legally but not without difficulty.
>>
>> I then did a couple of down sets with the last one at 405 for 3
>> singles. Every damned one of them pulled different. I'm ****ed!
>> I've got less than a month to go before State and probably only 10 -15
>> pounds better than I was at the TCO four and a half months ago. The
>> hand placement thingy didn't help either.
>>
>> <Not Dally...but depressed (still being an attention seeking,
>> politically correct, crybaby)>
>
>John, I am no expert on this kind of thing.
>
>But did you come up with a reason for falling over backwards?

I lost my balance. ****...I forgot to mention that. Geez. It's the
whole reason I was telling the story. My deadlift sucks and I'm
trying to experiment with some things. I can't break parallel at 515
either in my squat suit.
>
>Something is happening here. You better find it and nail it down. Before
>this progresses into who knows what.
>
>Can any of your buddies help?

I'm sure they could but they probably have Shawn Cain's 725 pound
deadlift emblazoned on their mind's tonight. Un****ingBelievable
tonight. He weighed 225 this morning.

Nina
January 15th 05, 03:40 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:03:50 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Nina" purred
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Delenn > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> >> > John Hanson > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>> >>
>> >> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> >> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
>since
>> >> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>> >> or a ****ing ****.
>> >>
>> >> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> >> spotting sociopaths.
>> >>
>> >> W.
>> >
>> >sociopaths?
>> >
>> >puhleeze.
>> >
>> >talk about histrionics.
>> >
>> >somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>> >argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>>
>> Wow, then I guess both of my brother are sociopaths. Plus (almost)
>> every guy I've ever dated.
>>
>> Although if you knew some of the men I dated, "stupid ****" might be
>> the nicest thing you'd say about me. :)
>>
>
>Stupid ****s and sociopaths!!
>
>Sound like my kind of crowd!!
>
>Now you are all settled down with a metrosexual and gonna get your head all
>wired - rubber banded up.
>
>What happened to you Nina??
>
>We had such hopes for you!!

I figure iffen I can make myself pretty I'll have an easier time
ruling the Universre that way.

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Nina
January 15th 05, 03:49 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" >
wrote:

>
>"Nina" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Delenn > wrote in message
...
>>>> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>>>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>>>> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>>>> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>>>> or a ****ing ****.
>>>>
>>>> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>>>> spotting sociopaths.
>>>>
>>>> W.
>>>
>>>sociopaths?
>>>
>>>puhleeze.
>>>
>>>talk about histrionics.
>>>
>>>somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>>>argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>>
>> Wow, then I guess both of my brother are sociopaths. Plus (almost)
>> every guy I've ever dated.
>>
>> Although if you knew some of the men I dated, "stupid ****" might be
>> the nicest thing you'd say about me. :)
>>
>
>i wouldn't
>
>i draw the line at the "C" word. i would never call a woman the "C" word,
>or more correctly no woman has ever deserved that moniker and i hope i never
>meet one that does

I have. I don't use it often, but when I do use it, I mean it. The
weird thing is that everyone gets up in my face, when it's the other
chick who's acting like the ****. ::shrug::
>
>that's like the "N" word for women, and that's a word i've never used
>towards anybody either
>
>but i am sure i could find some kinder and gentler insults to poke you with
>if the opportunity presents itself

Oh, feh. :p
>
>btw, on a business note...
>
>i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?) diva
>spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan

I actually read that it was because supposedly Aaron Carter was dating
one and then the other. I know that Hil and Aaron didn't meet until
his 13th birthday, 'cause I was there (can you believe the weird ****
I have to do for work? Oy...) However, we were told to put him in
an episode so my writing partner and I did - and we made them have a
kiss at the end 'cause we thought that was funny. So if Aaron Carter
is at the root of the feud, then my writing partner and I started it.

But who was dating who when and where I really kept away from. I was
having a hard enough time sorting out my own love life.


>now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say anything to
>jeapardize your cash cow but...

Lizzie Mcguire hasn't shot an episode since July of 2002. Even if I
say not so nice things about it, I still get my residuals.
>
>lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
>
>they are not even in the same league
>
>hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan will be
>the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up, or
>scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something

And she slows down a bit. She could easily go the way of Britney if
she doesn't relax a bit. Exposure is good, but overexposure can be
dangerous if you don't have anything to back it up. That's mantle all
teen stars carry.
>
>the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a bit of
>in front of the camera and stage work myself
>
>no comparison
>
>lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind lindsey
>
>sorry hillary. love ya anyways.

I don't know. I see some picture of Lindsey Lohan and I don't get it,
then I see pictures of her and she is way-tres-uber-hot. I don't
think she's more than a year older than Hil, but she looks older,
which I think adds to the HAWT factor. To me, Hil still looks liek a
kid.


Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Tigger
January 15th 05, 04:23 AM
In article >, "Instig"
> wrote:

> "Tigger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Tigger wrote:
> >> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Zap" > wrote
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
> >> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
> >> >>
> >> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
> >> >>
> >> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
> >> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> >> >
> >> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
> >> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
> >> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
> >> >
> >> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
> >> >
> >> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
> >> >
> >> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
> >> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
> >> > more like Tigger.
> >> >
> >> > :^)
> >>
> >> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
> >> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
> >> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
> >
> > Good point.
>
> i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one tigger.
>
> that is viki
>
> you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she is
>
> whit

I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki called
Tigger back then? If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.

--
Keith

Tigger
January 15th 05, 04:29 AM
In article >,
(Tigger) wrote:

> In article >, "Instig"
> > wrote:
>
> > "Tigger" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tigger wrote:
> > >> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> "Zap" > wrote
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
> > >> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
> > >> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
> > >> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
> > >> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
> > >> >
> > >> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
> > >> >
> > >> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
> > >> >
> > >> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
> > >> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
> > >> > more like Tigger.
> > >> >
> > >> > :^)
> > >>
> > >> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
> > >> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
> > >> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
> > >
> > > Good point.
> >
> > i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one tigger.
> >
> > that is viki
> >
> > you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she is
> >
> > whit
>
> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki called
> Tigger back then? If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.

Plus the day Viki comes even close to my vertical I'll be shocked. So she
may bounce, but where is the magnitude?

I was up to 31" today. I think I like this OL.

--
Keith

Instig
January 15th 05, 05:11 AM
"Tigger" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Instig"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Tigger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article <[email protected]>, "Al"
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tigger wrote:
>> >> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Zap" > wrote
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>> >> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>> >> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>> >> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>> >> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
>> >> >
>> >> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>> >> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>> >> > more like Tigger.
>> >> >
>> >> > :^)
>> >>
>> >> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
>> >> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>> >> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>> >
>> > Good point.
>>
>> i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one
>> tigger.
>>
>> that is viki
>>
>> you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she
>> is
>>
>> whit
>
> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki called
> Tigger back then?

by ME yes.

If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
>

you can use it. but you are still an imposter.

whit
(there can be only one)

> --
> Keith

Instig
January 15th 05, 05:16 AM
"Nina" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Nina" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:47:36 GMT, "Night" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Delenn > wrote in message
...
>>>>> The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>>>>> > John Hanson > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>>>>> search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
>>>>> since
>>>>> nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>>>>> or a ****ing ****.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>>>>> spotting sociopaths.
>>>>>
>>>>> W.
>>>>
>>>>sociopaths?
>>>>
>>>>puhleeze.
>>>>
>>>>talk about histrionics.
>>>>
>>>>somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>>>>argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>>>
>>> Wow, then I guess both of my brother are sociopaths. Plus (almost)
>>> every guy I've ever dated.
>>>
>>> Although if you knew some of the men I dated, "stupid ****" might be
>>> the nicest thing you'd say about me. :)
>>>
>>
>>i wouldn't
>>
>>i draw the line at the "C" word. i would never call a woman the "C" word,
>>or more correctly no woman has ever deserved that moniker and i hope i
>>never
>>meet one that does
>
> I have. I don't use it often, but when I do use it, I mean it. The
> weird thing is that everyone gets up in my face, when it's the other
> chick who's acting like the ****. ::shrug::

ouch. that word makes my teeth hurt

must be my victorian sensibility

>>
>>that's like the "N" word for women, and that's a word i've never used
>>towards anybody either
>>
>>but i am sure i could find some kinder and gentler insults to poke you
>>with
>>if the opportunity presents itself
>
> Oh, feh. :p

give me time

>>
>>btw, on a business note...
>>
>>i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?) diva
>>spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
>
> I actually read that it was because supposedly Aaron Carter was dating
> one and then the other.

that guy looks like he is about 12. heck, he makes either of these women
look positively geriatric and that's saying a lot

they need a REAL man, not some boyish dork

I know that Hil and Aaron didn't meet until
> his 13th birthday, 'cause I was there (can you believe the weird ****
> I have to do for work? Oy...) However, we were told to put him in
> an episode so my writing partner and I did - and we made them have a
> kiss at the end 'cause we thought that was funny. So if Aaron Carter
> is at the root of the feud, then my writing partner and I started it.
>

sweet!

> But who was dating who when and where I really kept away from. I was
> having a hard enough time sorting out my own love life.
>
>
>>now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say anything
>>to
>>jeapardize your cash cow but...
>
> Lizzie Mcguire hasn't shot an episode since July of 2002. Even if I
> say not so nice things about it, I still get my residuals.
>>

oh ok. nevermind then, cheddar

i've never seen the show. just seen her in other stuff

>>lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
>>
>>they are not even in the same league
>>
>>hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan will
>>be
>>the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up, or
>>scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
>
> And she slows down a bit. She could easily go the way of Britney if
> she doesn't relax a bit.

give her my #. i'll "relax her"

ok, phew. i feel all dirty now. oh, the horror

Exposure is good, but overexposure can be
> dangerous if you don't have anything to back it up. That's mantle all
> teen stars carry.

that's why i avoided all that hype and lived in relative obscurity.


>>
>>the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a bit of
>>in front of the camera and stage work myself
>>
>>no comparison
>>
>>lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind lindsey
>>
>>sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
>
> I don't know. I see some picture of Lindsey Lohan and I don't get it,
> then I see pictures of her and she is way-tres-uber-hot. I don't
> think she's more than a year older than Hil, but she looks older,

she has an older soul. it's obvious

i think she'll be up there with jennifer connely or monica belluci in the
classic beauty category, but have more success as they are a bit too niche
for major stardom

jennifer connely in Dark City is simply dreamy.



> which I think adds to the HAWT factor. To me, Hil still looks liek a
> kid.
>

yes.

whit

>
> Cheers,
> Nina
> delicious! evil! calorie free!
> http://www.theslack.com

Instig
January 15th 05, 05:20 AM
"Tigger" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Tigger) wrote:
>
>> In article >, "Instig"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > "Tigger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Al"
>> > > >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Tigger wrote:
>> > >> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> "Zap" > wrote
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>> > >> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>> > >> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>> > >> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>> > >> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
>> > >> >
>> > >> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>> > >> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>> > >> > more like Tigger.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > :^)
>> > >>
>> > >> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit'
>> > >> even
>> > >> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>> > >> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>> > >
>> > > Good point.
>> >
>> > i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one
>> > tigger.
>> >
>> > that is viki
>> >
>> > you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as
>> > she is
>> >
>> > whit
>>
>> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki
>> called
>> Tigger back then? If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
>
> Plus the day Viki comes even close to my vertical I'll be shocked. So she
> may bounce, but where is the magnitude?

i'm not talking about the magnitude of the vertical in your power center.

>
> I was up to 31" today. I think I like this OL.
>

i want to dunk

i don't think i ever will. guess i can always dunk my donuts and dream...

whit

> --
> Keith

JMW
January 15th 05, 05:30 AM
"Instig" > wrote:
>
>"Tigger" > wrote:
>>
>> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki called
>> Tigger back then?
>
>by ME yes.
>
>>If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
>
>you can use it. but you are still an imposter.
>
>whit
>(there can be only one)

Anything in MFW is subject to usurpation.
--

No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
transcendental state is purely coincidental.

Instig
January 15th 05, 05:37 AM
"JMW" > wrote in message
...
> "Instig" > wrote:
>>
>>"Tigger" > wrote:
>>>
>>> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki
>>> called
>>> Tigger back then?
>>
>>by ME yes.
>>
>>>If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
>>
>>you can use it. but you are still an imposter.
>>
>>whit
>>(there can be only one)
>
> Anything in MFW is subject to usurpation.
> --

usurping a balkan is fraught with danger

whit

>
> No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
> message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
> actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
> transcendental state is purely coincidental.

JMW
January 15th 05, 05:42 AM
"Instig" > wrote:
>"JMW" > wrote:
>> "Instig" > wrote:
>>>"Tigger" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki
>>>> called
>>>> Tigger back then?
>>>
>>>by ME yes.
>>>
>>>>If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
>>>
>>>you can use it. but you are still an imposter.
>>>
>>>whit
>>>(there can be only one)
>>
>> Anything in MFW is subject to usurpation.
>
>usurping a balkan is fraught with danger

I've dealt with a Balkan before.
--

No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
transcendental state is purely coincidental.

Nina
January 15th 05, 06:32 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:16:23 -0800, "Instig" >
wrote:


>i think she'll be up there with jennifer connely or monica belluci in the
>classic beauty category, but have more success as they are a bit too niche
>for major stardom
>
>jennifer connely in Dark City is simply dreamy.

My brother went to school with her. She dated a friend of his, but
for some reason, they'd always run into each other at the Wa-Wa at
3am.

Cheers,
Nina
Random Hollywood Stories 'r Us.
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

David
January 15th 05, 07:31 AM
"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:14:00 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:22:11 -0500, Delenn > wrote:
> >>
> >> >John HUDSON wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of what goes on here, as most of
> >> >> my family and work colleagues know all about MFW - because I tell
them
> >> >> and show them.
> >> >
> >> >I'm not sure why everyone is keying on this so much. I don't care
that
> >> >my pictures are up, my husband knows about this, my daughter knows
about
> >> >this, I know people IRL on these groups, half my clients see me naked
in
> >> >the lcokerroom at the Y...
> >> >
> >> >I'm ****ed because the ONE LEVEL of discretion I asked for has been
> >> >destroyed maliciously specifically because I asked for it.
> >> >
> >> >You can debate all you want about whether the level of discretion I
> >> >asked for is a good one or not, but the fact is, it's the level I was
> >> >comfortable with and was manageable.
> >> >
> >> >I got on usenet in 1994 using an account at my university. I don't
> >> >think ANYONE predicted 20 year google archives. When I got to a point
> >> >where I wanted to compartmentalize a bit more I got a different name,
a
> >> >different newsfeed, a different email account... it wasn't to HIDE,
just
> >> >to compartmentalize.
> >> >
> >> >All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by
> >> >having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't even
> >> >reply to it.
> >> >
> >> >It really doesn't matter if you understand this or agree with it. The
> >> >point is, Buck understood it. And since he cherishes anonymity he
knew
> >> >full well what he was destroying in me.
> >>
> >> You're feeling hurt and vulnerable and it's understandable and I
> >> sympathise with you. However, as the old adage has it: "least said
> >> soonest mended."
> >>
> >> It appears that the days of 'letting it all hang out' at MFW are
> >> coming to an end. It seems that John Williams, who used to post here,
> >> was wrong and that a degree of anonymity is perhaps not as dreadful as
> >> he used to demand it was.
> >>
> >> It is likely that I shall revert to Charles PONSONBY Esq ere long. If
> >> Keith Hobman thinks it's a wise move, that's good enough for me. (Lee
> >> will be livid with that!!)
> >>
> >You are truly a ledgend in your own mind. I couldn't care less.
>
> I think you do really, you old rascal, or why bother to respond?
>
> >
> >It takes far less time to killfile you than to write this.
>
> Well that's fine Lee and the status quo is retrieved, but why do you
> find it necessary to announce it publicly. I mean who really gives a
> **** - certainly not me!!
>
> It's like being savaged by a dead sheep!! ;o)
>
Lee enjoys publicly proclaiming his killfile victims because it implies a
certain superiority - he has very little to be superior about so he needs to
grab at whatever straw is available to him

Charles
January 15th 05, 08:33 AM
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 07:31:34 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:14:00 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles PONSONBY Esq" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:22:11 -0500, Delenn > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >John HUDSON wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I'm not sure why you are so ashamed of what goes on here, as most of
>> >> >> my family and work colleagues know all about MFW - because I tell
>them
>> >> >> and show them.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm not sure why everyone is keying on this so much. I don't care
>that
>> >> >my pictures are up, my husband knows about this, my daughter knows
>about
>> >> >this, I know people IRL on these groups, half my clients see me naked
>in
>> >> >the lcokerroom at the Y...
>> >> >
>> >> >I'm ****ed because the ONE LEVEL of discretion I asked for has been
>> >> >destroyed maliciously specifically because I asked for it.
>> >> >
>> >> >You can debate all you want about whether the level of discretion I
>> >> >asked for is a good one or not, but the fact is, it's the level I was
>> >> >comfortable with and was manageable.
>> >> >
>> >> >I got on usenet in 1994 using an account at my university. I don't
>> >> >think ANYONE predicted 20 year google archives. When I got to a point
>> >> >where I wanted to compartmentalize a bit more I got a different name,
>a
>> >> >different newsfeed, a different email account... it wasn't to HIDE,
>just
>> >> >to compartmentalize.
>> >> >
>> >> >All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by
>> >> >having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't even
>> >> >reply to it.
>> >> >
>> >> >It really doesn't matter if you understand this or agree with it. The
>> >> >point is, Buck understood it. And since he cherishes anonymity he
>knew
>> >> >full well what he was destroying in me.
>> >>
>> >> You're feeling hurt and vulnerable and it's understandable and I
>> >> sympathise with you. However, as the old adage has it: "least said
>> >> soonest mended."
>> >>
>> >> It appears that the days of 'letting it all hang out' at MFW are
>> >> coming to an end. It seems that John Williams, who used to post here,
>> >> was wrong and that a degree of anonymity is perhaps not as dreadful as
>> >> he used to demand it was.
>> >>
>> >> It is likely that I shall revert to Charles PONSONBY Esq ere long. If
>> >> Keith Hobman thinks it's a wise move, that's good enough for me. (Lee
>> >> will be livid with that!!)
>> >>
>> >You are truly a ledgend in your own mind. I couldn't care less.
>>
>> I think you do really, you old rascal, or why bother to respond?
>>
>> >
>> >It takes far less time to killfile you than to write this.
>>
>> Well that's fine Lee and the status quo is retrieved, but why do you
>> find it necessary to announce it publicly. I mean who really gives a
>> **** - certainly not me!!
>>
>> It's like being savaged by a dead sheep!! ;o)
>>
>Lee enjoys publicly proclaiming his killfile victims because it implies a
>certain superiority - he has very little to be superior about so he needs to
>grab at whatever straw is available to him

He is just a silly old man with insecurity problems.

I note with interest that he appears to have chummed up with that new
chap MJW. That speaks volumes for the pair of them!! ;o)

HAGW!!

David
January 15th 05, 09:06 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Zap" > wrote
> >>
> >> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
> >> that what gave me away?
> >
> >Just a hint for you Keith,
> >
> >Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have a
> >difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>
> Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
> your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)
>
> You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great weekend
> Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
> that is!) ;o)
>
> TFIF!!
>
Charles, I hope you are aware that Lee is one of those disgusting trolls.
Most of us have him killfiled as I am sure that you will as well (of course
you can make up your own mind!) -

Charles
January 15th 05, 09:33 AM
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:06:08 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Zap" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
>> >> that what gave me away?
>> >
>> >Just a hint for you Keith,
>> >
>> >Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have a
>> >difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>>
>> Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
>> your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)
>>
>> You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great weekend
>> Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
>> that is!) ;o)
>>
>> TFIF!!
>>
>Charles, I hope you are aware that Lee is one of those disgusting trolls.
>Most of us have him killfiled as I am sure that you will as well (of course
>you can make up your own mind!) -

Well if a respected well-informed regular as yourself recommends
"killfiling" such a person, then it is incumbent upon me to take the
necessary action to do likewise.

Stand by for a severe *plonking* declaration to be issued in the very
near future. Hopefully this will draw other members' attention to the
failings of this unpleasant contributor and they will be encouraged to
do likewise!!

What about his new chum, this WMJ character, should we include him too
Mein Fuehrer?

That will teach the bally *******s!! ;o)

HAGW!!

David
January 15th 05, 09:52 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:06:08 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Zap" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it.
Was
> >> >> that what gave me away?
> >> >
> >> >Just a hint for you Keith,
> >> >
> >> >Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have
a
> >> >difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> >>
> >> Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
> >> your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)
> >>
> >> You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great weekend
> >> Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
> >> that is!) ;o)
> >>
> >> TFIF!!
> >>
> >Charles, I hope you are aware that Lee is one of those disgusting trolls.
> >Most of us have him killfiled as I am sure that you will as well (of
course
> >you can make up your own mind!) -
>
> Well if a respected well-informed regular as yourself recommends
> "killfiling" such a person, then it is incumbent upon me to take the
> necessary action to do likewise.
>
> Stand by for a severe *plonking* declaration to be issued in the very
> near future. Hopefully this will draw other members' attention to the
> failings of this unpleasant contributor and they will be encouraged to
> do likewise!!
>
> What about his new chum, this WMJ character, should we include him too
> Mein Fuehrer?
>
> That will teach the bally *******s!! ;o)
>
> HAGW!!
>
For a newbie, Charles, you are showing uncommon perspicacity. The other
character you mention doesn't have the prerequisite for instant killfiling -
of course that is 'gross stupidity' which is so well demonstrated by our Lee

Charles
January 15th 05, 10:05 AM
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:52:39 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:06:08 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Zap" > wrote
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it.
>Was
>> >> >> that what gave me away?
>> >> >
>> >> >Just a hint for you Keith,
>> >> >
>> >> >Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have
>a
>> >> >difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> >>
>> >> Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
>> >> your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)
>> >>
>> >> You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great weekend
>> >> Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
>> >> that is!) ;o)
>> >>
>> >> TFIF!!
>> >>
>> >Charles, I hope you are aware that Lee is one of those disgusting trolls.
>> >Most of us have him killfiled as I am sure that you will as well (of
>course
>> >you can make up your own mind!) -
>>
>> Well if a respected well-informed regular as yourself recommends
>> "killfiling" such a person, then it is incumbent upon me to take the
>> necessary action to do likewise.
>>
>> Stand by for a severe *plonking* declaration to be issued in the very
>> near future. Hopefully this will draw other members' attention to the
>> failings of this unpleasant contributor and they will be encouraged to
>> do likewise!!
>>
>> What about his new chum, this WMJ character, should we include him too
>> Mein Fuehrer?
>>
>> That will teach the bally *******s!! ;o)
>>
>> HAGW!!
>>
>For a newbie, Charles, you are showing uncommon perspicacity. The other
>character you mention doesn't have the prerequisite for instant killfiling -
>of course that is 'gross stupidity' which is so well demonstrated by our Lee
>

Quite so, quite so oh wise one. I await your further instructions!!

This is such fun David; thank you for taking me under your wing so to
speak!! ;o)

I do like this "killfiling" game. Why don't we ask the Group if we
could all propose people that should be "killfiled", draw up a
definitive list and then at an agreed time press the button and
"killfile" the rotters in a joyous celebration of proprietary
self-righteousness?

The only risk is that the entire Group could well disappear instantly
in a puff of smoke!!

HAGW!!

David
January 15th 05, 10:14 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:52:39 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:06:08 GMT, "David" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Zap" > wrote
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
it.
> >Was
> >> >> >> that what gave me away?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Just a hint for you Keith,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
have
> >a
> >> >> >difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
> >> >> your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)
> >> >>
> >> >> You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great
weekend
> >> >> Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
> >> >> that is!) ;o)
> >> >>
> >> >> TFIF!!
> >> >>
> >> >Charles, I hope you are aware that Lee is one of those disgusting
trolls.
> >> >Most of us have him killfiled as I am sure that you will as well (of
> >course
> >> >you can make up your own mind!) -
> >>
> >> Well if a respected well-informed regular as yourself recommends
> >> "killfiling" such a person, then it is incumbent upon me to take the
> >> necessary action to do likewise.
> >>
> >> Stand by for a severe *plonking* declaration to be issued in the very
> >> near future. Hopefully this will draw other members' attention to the
> >> failings of this unpleasant contributor and they will be encouraged to
> >> do likewise!!
> >>
> >> What about his new chum, this WMJ character, should we include him too
> >> Mein Fuehrer?
> >>
> >> That will teach the bally *******s!! ;o)
> >>
> >> HAGW!!
> >>
> >For a newbie, Charles, you are showing uncommon perspicacity. The other
> >character you mention doesn't have the prerequisite for instant
killfiling -
> >of course that is 'gross stupidity' which is so well demonstrated by our
Lee
> >
>
> Quite so, quite so oh wise one. I await your further instructions!!
>
> This is such fun David; thank you for taking me under your wing so to
> speak!! ;o)
>
> I do like this "killfiling" game. Why don't we ask the Group if we
> could all propose people that should be "killfiled", draw up a
> definitive list and then at an agreed time press the button and
> "killfile" the rotters in a joyous celebration of proprietary
> self-righteousness?
>
> The only risk is that the entire Group could well disappear instantly
> in a puff of smoke!!
>
> HAGW!!

No problem! I enjoy helping the newbies to identify the trolls (who must be
avoided like the plague!)
By the way Charles, you seem to have adopted the style of one John Hudson
who seems renently has stopped posting here (I do miss the wretch!)
Yes killfiling is fun (we don't really you know - we just pretend - and then
when their guard is down we give them a good kick in the balls! - then go
right back to pretending!)

Charles
January 15th 05, 10:38 AM
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:14:38 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:52:39 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 09:06:08 GMT, "David" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:08:51 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Zap" > wrote
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>it.
>> >Was
>> >> >> >> that what gave me away?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Just a hint for you Keith,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>have
>> >a
>> >> >> >difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ooh!! You brown nosed ******* Lee. How do you manage to breathe with
>> >> >> your nose so far up some peoples bums? ;o)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are a joy and a constant source of amusement. Have a great
>weekend
>> >> >> Lee - I'm about to start mine and you know I will (have a great one
>> >> >> that is!) ;o)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> TFIF!!
>> >> >>
>> >> >Charles, I hope you are aware that Lee is one of those disgusting
>trolls.
>> >> >Most of us have him killfiled as I am sure that you will as well (of
>> >course
>> >> >you can make up your own mind!) -
>> >>
>> >> Well if a respected well-informed regular as yourself recommends
>> >> "killfiling" such a person, then it is incumbent upon me to take the
>> >> necessary action to do likewise.
>> >>
>> >> Stand by for a severe *plonking* declaration to be issued in the very
>> >> near future. Hopefully this will draw other members' attention to the
>> >> failings of this unpleasant contributor and they will be encouraged to
>> >> do likewise!!
>> >>
>> >> What about his new chum, this WMJ character, should we include him too
>> >> Mein Fuehrer?
>> >>
>> >> That will teach the bally *******s!! ;o)
>> >>
>> >> HAGW!!
>> >>
>> >For a newbie, Charles, you are showing uncommon perspicacity. The other
>> >character you mention doesn't have the prerequisite for instant
>killfiling -
>> >of course that is 'gross stupidity' which is so well demonstrated by our
>Lee
>> >
>>
>> Quite so, quite so oh wise one. I await your further instructions!!
>>
>> This is such fun David; thank you for taking me under your wing so to
>> speak!! ;o)
>>
>> I do like this "killfiling" game. Why don't we ask the Group if we
>> could all propose people that should be "killfiled", draw up a
>> definitive list and then at an agreed time press the button and
>> "killfile" the rotters in a joyous celebration of proprietary
>> self-righteousness?
>>
>> The only risk is that the entire Group could well disappear instantly
>> in a puff of smoke!!
>>
>> HAGW!!
>
>No problem! I enjoy helping the newbies to identify the trolls (who must be
>avoided like the plague!)
>By the way Charles, you seem to have adopted the style of one John Hudson
>who seems renently has stopped posting here (I do miss the wretch!)

How interesting but I'm sure he is here is spirit if not in body!! ;o)

>Yes killfiling is fun (we don't really you know - we just pretend - and then
>when their guard is down we give them a good kick in the balls! - then go
>right back to pretending!)

Right, sounds good to me!!

Hobbes
January 15th 05, 12:56 PM
In article >, "Instig"
> wrote:

> "Tigger" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Instig"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> "Tigger" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article <[email protected]>, "Al"
> >> > >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Tigger wrote:
> >> >> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Zap" > wrote
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
> >> >> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
> >> >> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
> >> >> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
> >> >> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
> >> >> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
> >> >> > more like Tigger.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > :^)
> >> >>
> >> >> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
> >> >> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
> >> >> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
> >> >
> >> > Good point.
> >>
> >> i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one
> >> tigger.
> >>
> >> that is viki
> >>
> >> you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she
> >> is
> >>
> >> whit
> >
> > I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki called
> > Tigger back then?
>
> by ME yes.
>
> If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
> >
>
> you can use it. but you are still an imposter.

Exactly. So I can't use it.

Hobbes = Tigger = Zap = Keith

--
Keith

Bob Mann
January 15th 05, 01:58 PM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:43:02 -0800, "Instig" >
wrote:

>
>"Tigger" > wrote in message
...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tigger wrote:
>>> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>>> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> "Zap" > wrote
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>>> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>>> >>
>>> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
>>> >>
>>> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>>> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>>> >
>>> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>>> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>>> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>>> >
>>> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>>> >
>>> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
>>> >
>>> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>>> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>>> > more like Tigger.
>>> >
>>> > :^)
>>>
>>> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
>>> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>>> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>>
>> Good point.
>
>i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one tigger.
>
>that is viki
>
>you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she is
>
>whit
>
Is Viki still in your general neighbourhood?
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.

Delenn
January 15th 05, 02:21 PM
John Hanson wrote:

> On 14 Jan 2005 23:38:34 GMT, DZ
> > wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
>
>>John Hanson > wrote:
>>
>>>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>
>>
>>It's that way ___________^
>>
>>Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>>nickname in one post, like you did just recently. But I can't recall
>>any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>>
>
> I did? I wasn't even trying. I'm still a little upset that nobody
> noticed that I indirectly claimed to be the hot stud who ****ed her
> when she was in college.

I couldn't refute it. The memories swarm.

W.

Delenn
January 15th 05, 02:23 PM
John Hanson wrote:

> <Not Dally...but depressed (still being an attention seeking,
> politically correct, crybaby)>

No, I still *own* that category. You're nowhere near politically correct.

HTH

W.

Patrick Falcon
January 15th 05, 03:36 PM
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:32:51 GMT, Nina
> wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:16:23 -0800, "Instig" >
>wrote:
>
>
>>i think she'll be up there with jennifer connely or monica belluci in the
>>classic beauty category, but have more success as they are a bit too niche
>>for major stardom
>>
>>jennifer connely in Dark City is simply dreamy.
>
>My brother went to school with her. She dated a friend of his, but
>for some reason, they'd always run into each other at the Wa-Wa at
>3am.
>
>Cheers,
>Nina
>Random Hollywood Stories 'r Us.
>delicious! evil! calorie free!
>http://www.theslack.com

I need to move to Hollywood. I don't run into people like that very
often around here.

I first noticed Jennifer Connelly in Career Opportunities. She was
fun to look at, but it never entered my mind that ten years later, she
would be doing work like A Beautiful Mind. I loved the character of
Alicia Nash, and Connelly played her well.

Now I need to check out Dark City. I learn all kinds of cool things
on this group.

Patrick Falcon

Nina
January 15th 05, 08:56 PM
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:36:32 GMT, Patrick Falcon
> wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:32:51 GMT, Nina
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 21:16:23 -0800, "Instig" >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>i think she'll be up there with jennifer connely or monica belluci in the
>>>classic beauty category, but have more success as they are a bit too niche
>>>for major stardom
>>>
>>>jennifer connely in Dark City is simply dreamy.
>>
>>My brother went to school with her. She dated a friend of his, but
>>for some reason, they'd always run into each other at the Wa-Wa at
>>3am.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Nina
>>Random Hollywood Stories 'r Us.
>>delicious! evil! calorie free!
>>http://www.theslack.com
>
>I need to move to Hollywood. I don't run into people like that very
>often around here.

That was in New Haven, Connecticut. Not here. I only run into
celebrities on very rare occasions. Actually, scratch that. I
rarely run into celebrities - I see actors all of the time.

>I first noticed Jennifer Connelly in Career Opportunities. She was
>fun to look at, but it never entered my mind that ten years later, she
>would be doing work like A Beautiful Mind. I loved the character of
>Alicia Nash, and Connelly played her well.

I concur.

Cheers,
Nina


delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Delenn
January 15th 05, 09:03 PM
Hobbes wrote:

> Hobbes = Tigger = Zap = Keith

As long as your email address is still the same, well, nevermind.

I like Hobbes for you. Strong, wicked, fun to be around, with a strong
undertone of being an imaginary being. Fits you to a T.

W., talking to the voices in her head again

JMW
January 15th 05, 09:45 PM
Delenn > wrote:

>Hobbes wrote:
>
>> Hobbes = Tigger = Zap = Keith
>
>As long as your email address is still the same, well, nevermind.
>
>I like Hobbes for you. Strong, wicked, fun to be around, with a strong
>undertone of being an imaginary being. Fits you to a T.

Not to mention that it's a perfect nick for HOBman.
--

No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
transcendental state is purely coincidental.

Delenn
January 15th 05, 09:54 PM
JMW wrote:

> Delenn > wrote:
>
>
>>Hobbes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hobbes = Tigger = Zap = Keith
>>
>>As long as your email address is still the same, well, nevermind.
>>
>>I like Hobbes for you. Strong, wicked, fun to be around, with a strong
>>undertone of being an imaginary being. Fits you to a T.
>
>
> Not to mention that it's a perfect nick for HOBman.

Yup. I was practicing terse.

W., all talked out

Hobbes
January 15th 05, 10:05 PM
In article >, JMW
> wrote:

> Delenn > wrote:
>
> >Hobbes wrote:
> >
> >> Hobbes = Tigger = Zap = Keith
> >
> >As long as your email address is still the same, well, nevermind.
> >
> >I like Hobbes for you. Strong, wicked, fun to be around, with a strong
> >undertone of being an imaginary being. Fits you to a T.
>
> Not to mention that it's a perfect nick for HOBman.

I actually get called that at times and so does my son. So...

I guess it'll stick.

Nicknames are kind of fun.

I've been called a few over the years. Some are even complimentary. Well. A few.

:^)

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:22 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:42:36 -0500, Delenn > wrote:

>The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> John Hanson > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>
>>
>> I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>
>Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>or a ****ing ****.

"Mostly". Uh, right.

I used the "****ing ****" term exactly once (in reference to ANYBODY
in ANY group in 13 years), and that was just to parallel SJ's response
on the same thread. I thought both were humerous references.

>Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>spotting sociopaths.

Oooh, I'm hurt. Do I tell my therapist, or my parole officer?

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:22 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:33:03 -0600, (Keith Hobman) wrote:

>In article et>, "Night"
> wrote:
>
>> Delenn > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> > > John Hanson > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>> >
>> > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me, since
>> > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>> > or a ****ing ****.
>> >
>> > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> > spotting sociopaths.
>> >
>> > W.
>>
>> sociopaths?
>>
>> puhleeze.
>>
>> talk about histrionics.
>>
>> somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>> argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>>
>> that's absurd
>
>Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.

5-11.
"Commitment to Excellence"

>He is a raging raidiopath.
>
>Raging I say.

Pity me. I'm a 49ers (2-14) fan, even from before I lived out here.

(Maybe the 49ers will move to L.A. as rumored, and I'll get something for my season ticket rights)

What next, Cohen calling me a Kimberpath?

>The man needs to get laid. Or something.

C'mon, geek_girl, take one for the team.

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:22 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:04:38 -0600, (Zap) wrote:

>In article et>, "Lester
>Long" > wrote:
>
>> "Zap" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > (Keith Hobman) wrote:
>> >
>> > > In article et>,
>> "Night"
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Delenn > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>> > > > > > John Hanson > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>> > > > > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
>> since
>> > > > > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a
>> liar
>> > > > > or a ****ing ****.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>> > > > > spotting sociopaths.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > W.
>> > > >
>> > > > sociopaths?
>> > > >
>> > > > puhleeze.
>> > > >
>> > > > talk about histrionics.
>> > > >
>> > > > somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>> > > > argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>> > > >
>> > > > that's absurd
>> > >
>> > > Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
>> > >
>> > > He is a raging raidiopath.
>> > >
>> > > Raging I say. The man needs to get laid. Or something.
>> >
>> > I think I'm going to emulate Whit and start using different user names.
>> > Just a test.
>>
>> Warning: Keith=Zap.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Lester, who is harassing you
>
>I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
>that what gave me away?

No, it was that prairie-with-a-touch-of-poutine odor.

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:22 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:14:59 -0600, (Tigger) wrote:

>In article >, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:
>
>> "Zap" > wrote
>> >
>> > I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on it. Was
>> > that what gave me away?
>>
>> Just a hint for you Keith,
>>
>> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will have a
>> difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>
>I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away from MFW.
>My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin and did a search
>on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>
>I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>
>Tigger = Zap = Keith
>
>But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such panache and
>verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm more like Tigger.
>
>:^)

But if Viki comes back, you might have to relinquish it.

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:22 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:14:03 GMT, "Al" > wrote:

>Tigger wrote:
>> In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Zap" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>>>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>>>
>>> Just a hint for you Keith,
>>>
>>> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>>> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>>
>> I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>> from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>> and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>>
>> I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>>
>> Tigger = Zap = Keith
>>
>> But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>> panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>> more like Tigger.
>>
>> :^)
>
>One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
>though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>depends how anonymous you want to be . . .

But how do you KNOW it's Whit?

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:22 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:29:17 -0600, (Tigger) wrote:

>In article >,
>(Tigger) wrote:
>
>> In article >, "Instig"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > "Tigger" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > In article <[email protected]>, "Al" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Tigger wrote:
>> > >> > In article >, "Lee Michaels"
>> > >> > > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> "Zap" > wrote
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> I prolly should have taken the email addy out with 'khobman' on
>> > >> >>> it. Was that what gave me away?
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Just a hint for you Keith,
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Anybody who suffers from Canadian Niceness Syndrome probably will
>> > >> >> have a difficult time becoming anonymous in MFW.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I don't want to be anonymous on MFW. I want to be anonymous away
>> > >> > from MFW. My boss was trying to find out how I did during Laughlin
>> > >> > and did a search on my name. 'Prolific' was the term he used.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I don't really care if someone wants to do the work.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Tigger = Zap = Keith
>> > >> >
>> > >> > But I think I'll go with Tigger for a while. Tigers have such
>> > >> > panache and verve. Hobbes and Tigger are my favourites, but I'm
>> > >> > more like Tigger.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > :^)
>> > >>
>> > >> One thing to keep in mind, Whit always signs his posts as 'whit' even
>> > >> though the posting name shows as something different. I guess it
>> > >> depends how anonymous you want to be . . .
>> > >
>> > > Good point.
>> >
>> > i just want to state for the record that there is ONE and only one tigger.
>> >
>> > that is viki
>> >
>> > you can borrow the moniker, but there is no way you are as bouncy as she is
>> >
>> > whit
>>
>> I borrowed nothing. I used what was given to me by others. Was Viki called
>> Tigger back then? If not, it is mine. If so, I'll go by Hobbes.
>
>Plus the day Viki comes even close to my vertical I'll be shocked. So she
>may bounce, but where is the magnitude?


Dude.

There's quantity, and then there's quality.

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:23 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" > wrote:

>i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?) diva
>spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
>now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say anything to
>jeapardize your cash cow but...
>
>lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
>
>they are not even in the same league
>
>hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan will be
>the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up, or
>scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
>
>the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a bit of
>in front of the camera and stage work myself
>
>no comparison
>
>lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind lindsey
>
>sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
>
>whit

I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about things.

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:23 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 12:22:11 -0500, Delenn > wrote:

>All of Geek-girl's drivel about how I was just ASKING to be ****ed by
>having used my real name in the past is so abhorrent that I can't even
>reply to it.

Oh, is that what she wrote? My newsreader must be broken.

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:23 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:17:57 -0500, Delenn > wrote:

>Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>> It takes far less time to killfile you than to write this.
>
>One of my problems (and I'm sure others will jump to enumerate the rest)
>is that I don't have a decent kill-file on this reader. I miss my old TIN!)

Boy, you'd think Mozilla would have thought of that.


Oh, wait, they DID:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Thunderbird_:_FAQs_:_Filters

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:23 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:56:57 -0500, Delenn > wrote:

>DZ wrote:
>
>> Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>> nickname in one post, like you did just recently.
>
>I don't recall Hanson doing that. And it's not like I would have
>forgotten.

Mind like a steel trap*.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/483aa6bd11e159bb?dmode=source


* - inflexible, rusty, and illegal in 37 states

Lucas Buck
January 18th 05, 12:23 AM
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:45:08 -0500, "Lee Michaels" > wrote:

>
>"Delenn" wrote
>
>> DZ wrote:
>>
>> > Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>> > nickname in one post, like you did just recently.
>>
>> I don't recall Hanson doing that. And it's not like I would have
>> forgotten.
>>
>> All I ask is that you don't put my first name and my last name with my
>> nicknames. I'm not picky about first names, just leave my last name
>> entirely out of it. Please. I share that name with too many other
>people.
>>
>> > But I can't recall
>> > any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>>
>> Swarming. Yup, good description.
>>
>Ya mean like fireants?

Are you implying that Elzinator is plotting to kill the M.O.B. ?

David Cohen
January 18th 05, 12:42 AM
"Lucas Buck" > wrote
> (Keith Hobman) wrote:
>> > wrote:
>>> Delenn > wrote
>>> > The Queen of Cans and Jars wrote:
>>> > > John Hanson > wrote:
>>> > >>is "harassing" Wendy?
>>> > >
>>> > > I think it's the "2 months in the gym with no changes" thread.
>>> >
>>> > Actually, there were two of them where he did that. In fact, just
>>> > search for his name and chances are you'll find him harrassing me,
>>> > since
>>> > nearly 50% of his are direct responses to me, mostly calling me a liar
>>> > or a ****ing ****.
>>> >
>>> > Hudson is right - that hurt to type - that I've been too naive about
>>> > spotting sociopaths.
>>>
>>> sociopaths?
>>>
>>> puhleeze.
>>>
>>> talk about histrionics.
>>>
>>> somebody who harasses you (if one even accepts that for the sake of
>>> argument) does not make them a SOCIOPATH
>>>
>>> that's absurd
>>
>>Lucas constantly harasses me about cheering for the Oakland Raiders.
>
> 5-11.
> "Commitment to Excellence"
>
>>He is a raging raidiopath.
>>
>>Raging I say.
>
> Pity me. I'm a 49ers (2-14) fan, even from before I lived out here.
>
> (Maybe the 49ers will move to L.A. as rumored, and I'll get something for
> my season ticket rights)
>
> What next, Cohen calling me a Kimberpath?

I thought that went without saying.

WITHOUT SAYING!!

David

Night
January 18th 05, 01:08 AM
Lucas Buck > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" > wrote:
>
> >i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?) diva
> >spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
> >now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say anything
to
> >jeapardize your cash cow but...
> >
> >lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
> >
> >they are not even in the same league
> >
> >hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan will
be
> >the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up, or
> >scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
> >
> >the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a bit
of
> >in front of the camera and stage work myself
> >
> >no comparison
> >
> >lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind lindsey
> >
> >sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
> >
> >whit
>
> I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about things.
>

they ARE both >=18, correct?

whit

>

Nina
January 18th 05, 01:11 AM
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:08:07 GMT, "Night" >
wrote:

>
>Lucas Buck > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" > wrote:
>>
>> >i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?) diva
>> >spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
>> >now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say anything
>to
>> >jeapardize your cash cow but...
>> >
>> >lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
>> >
>> >they are not even in the same league
>> >
>> >hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan will
>be
>> >the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up, or
>> >scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
>> >
>> >the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a bit
>of
>> >in front of the camera and stage work myself
>> >
>> >no comparison
>> >
>> >lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind lindsey
>> >
>> >sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about things.
>>
>
>they ARE both >=18, correct?
>
>whit

Lindsay is over 18. Hil won't be 18 'til September, IIRC.

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

elzinator
January 18th 05, 01:41 AM
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:23:29 GMT, Lucas Buck wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:45:08 -0500, "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Delenn" wrote
>>
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>
>>> > Apparently, he put together her first, last names, and the usenet
>>> > nickname in one post, like you did just recently.
>>>
>>> I don't recall Hanson doing that. And it's not like I would have
>>> forgotten.
>>>
>>> All I ask is that you don't put my first name and my last name with my
>>> nicknames. I'm not picky about first names, just leave my last name
>>> entirely out of it. Please. I share that name with too many other
>>people.
>>>
>>> > But I can't recall
>>> > any outrage at that time and now it's really swarming.
>>>
>>> Swarming. Yup, good description.
>>>
>>Ya mean like fireants?
>
>Are you implying that Elzinator is plotting to kill the M.O.B. ?

I am learning to control them. They will be my army.
Just can't decide on a trigger signal.



Bioinformatics:
"What is a sheep; only millions of little bits of sheepness
whirling around and doing intricate convolutions inside the
sheep? What else is it but that?"
-Flann O'Brien, "The Third Policeman"

Al
January 18th 05, 09:51 PM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:14:03 GMT, "Al" > wrote:
>
> But how do you KNOW it's Whit?

It's either whit or Wayne S. Hill (who seems to be missing anyway), or
Watson, or . . . wait - aren't they all the same person?

--
Al

Delenn
January 18th 05, 11:56 PM
Al wrote:
> Lucas Buck wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:14:03 GMT, "Al" > wrote:
>>
>> But how do you KNOW it's Whit?
>
>
> It's either whit or Wayne S. Hill (who seems to be missing anyway), or
> Watson, or . . . wait - aren't they all the same person?

You forgot Lee Hoffman.

Delenn

Night
January 19th 05, 12:55 AM
Nina > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:08:07 GMT, "Night" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Lucas Buck > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" >
wrote:
> >>
> >> >i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?)
diva
> >> >spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
> >> >now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say
anything
> >to
> >> >jeapardize your cash cow but...
> >> >
> >> >lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
> >> >
> >> >they are not even in the same league
> >> >
> >> >hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan
will
> >be
> >> >the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up,
or
> >> >scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
> >> >
> >> >the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a
bit
> >of
> >> >in front of the camera and stage work myself
> >> >
> >> >no comparison
> >> >
> >> >lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind
lindsey
> >> >
> >> >sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
> >> >
> >> >whit
> >>
> >> I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about things.
> >>
> >
> >they ARE both >=18, correct?
> >
> >whit
>
> Lindsay is over 18. Hil won't be 18 'til September, IIRC.
>

ok. don't publish/create the duff pix. that would be a felony

whit

> Cheers,
> Nina
> delicious! evil! calorie free!
> http://www.theslack.com

Nina
January 19th 05, 01:04 AM
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:55:23 GMT, "Night" >
wrote:

>
>Nina > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:08:07 GMT, "Night" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Lucas Buck > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" >
>wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?)
>diva
>> >> >spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
>> >> >now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say
>anything
>> >to
>> >> >jeapardize your cash cow but...
>> >> >
>> >> >lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
>> >> >
>> >> >they are not even in the same league
>> >> >
>> >> >hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey lohan
>will
>> >be
>> >> >the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon up,
>or
>> >> >scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
>> >> >
>> >> >the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a
>bit
>> >of
>> >> >in front of the camera and stage work myself
>> >> >
>> >> >no comparison
>> >> >
>> >> >lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind
>lindsey
>> >> >
>> >> >sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
>> >> >
>> >> >whit
>> >>
>> >> I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about things.
>> >>
>> >
>> >they ARE both >=18, correct?
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> Lindsay is over 18. Hil won't be 18 'til September, IIRC.
>>
>
>ok. don't publish/create the duff pix. that would be a felony
>
>whit

Um, I'm not the one who suggested it.

Cheers,
Nina
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Lee Michaels
January 19th 05, 01:15 AM
"Nina" wrote
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:55:23 GMT, "Night" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Nina > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:08:07 GMT, "Night" >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Lucas Buck > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" >
> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?)
> >diva
> >> >> >spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
> >> >> >now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say
> >anything
> >> >to
> >> >> >jeapardize your cash cow but...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >they are not even in the same league
> >> >> >
> >> >> >hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey
lohan
> >will
> >> >be
> >> >> >the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon
up,
> >or
> >> >> >scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
> >> >> >
> >> >> >the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a
> >bit
> >> >of
> >> >> >in front of the camera and stage work myself
> >> >> >
> >> >> >no comparison
> >> >> >
> >> >> >lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind
> >lindsey
> >> >> >
> >> >> >sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >whit
> >> >>
> >> >> I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about
things.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >they ARE both >=18, correct?
> >> >
> >> >whit
> >>
> >> Lindsay is over 18. Hil won't be 18 'til September, IIRC.
> >>
> >
> >ok. don't publish/create the duff pix. that would be a felony
> >
> >whit
>
> Um, I'm not the one who suggested it.
>
Since we are talking jpeg's here slackmistriss, are we gonna see ya when you
are trussed up in rubber bands??

Puleeze???

Nina
January 19th 05, 01:33 AM
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:15:37 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Nina" wrote
>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 00:55:23 GMT, "Night" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Nina > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:08:07 GMT, "Night" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Lucas Buck > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:49:59 -0800, "Instig" >
>> >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >i saw on VH1 or something that there was some sort of (artificial?)
>> >diva
>> >> >> >spat between hillary duff and lindsey lohan
>> >> >> >now, i realize you are probably biased, and wouldn't want to say
>> >anything
>> >> >to
>> >> >> >jeapardize your cash cow but...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >lindsey lohan is MAGNITUDES hawter than hillary duff.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >they are not even in the same league
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >hillary duff is like very cute and stuff, but (IMNSHP) lindsey
>lohan
>> >will
>> >> >be
>> >> >> >the next great american beauty (tm) assuming she doesn't balloon
>up,
>> >or
>> >> >> >scrape her face off in a street luge accident or something
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >the camera also simply lurvs her, and i say that as somebody with a
>> >bit
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >in front of the camera and stage work myself
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >no comparison
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >lindsey rools. hillary is a bit past drool stage, but way behind
>> >lindsey
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >sorry hillary. love ya anyways.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >whit
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I think we need nekkid jpegs of both, to be totally fair about
>things.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >they ARE both >=18, correct?
>> >> >
>> >> >whit
>> >>
>> >> Lindsay is over 18. Hil won't be 18 'til September, IIRC.
>> >>
>> >
>> >ok. don't publish/create the duff pix. that would be a felony
>> >
>> >whit
>>
>> Um, I'm not the one who suggested it.
>>
>Since we are talking jpeg's here slackmistriss, are we gonna see ya when you
>are trussed up in rubber bands??
>
>Puleeze???

Dammit, man, my surgery's not 'til February 3rd! And if you have some
sort of desire to see my cheeks swollen to three times its normal
size, my mouth caked with blood and the banding inside of said mouth
holding my newly-moved jaws together, I suggest therapy, quick. :)

Cheers,
Nina
(Maybe they'll give you and Delenn a twoferone special! :)
delicious! evil! calorie free!
http://www.theslack.com

Delenn
January 19th 05, 01:49 AM
Nina wrote:

> Dammit, man, my surgery's not 'til February 3rd! And if you have some
> sort of desire to see my cheeks swollen to three times its normal
> size, my mouth caked with blood and the banding inside of said mouth
> holding my newly-moved jaws together, I suggest therapy, quick. :)
>
> Cheers,
> Nina
> (Maybe they'll give you and Delenn a twoferone special! :)
> delicious! evil! calorie free!
> http://www.theslack.com

Hey! I heard that.

Delenn

Lee Michaels
January 19th 05, 03:03 AM
"Nina" wrote
>
> Dammit, man, my surgery's not 'til February 3rd! And if you have some
> sort of desire to see my cheeks swollen to three times its normal
> size, my mouth caked with blood and the banding inside of said mouth
> holding my newly-moved jaws together, I suggest therapy, quick. :)
>

Another classic guy - girl miscommunication goin' on here.

Let me tell you a story. I had a good friend that I worked with. She had to
take a day off from work to have all four wisdom teeth extracted. If you
ever knew anybody who had this done, the cheeks swell up till you look like
a squirrel with cheeks packed full of nuts.

Your whole face swells up. And she made it clear that no pictures were to be
taken of her when in this state. That was a challenge if ther ever was one.
I laid in ambush and got many startled looks from my flash going off and
catching her in her startle reflex, swollen cheek glory.

And then I got prints made and put them up everywhere.

<evil cackle>

Lucas Buck
January 19th 05, 11:51 PM
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:03:57 -0500, "Lee Michaels" > wrote:

>
>"Nina" wrote
>>
>> Dammit, man, my surgery's not 'til February 3rd! And if you have some
>> sort of desire to see my cheeks swollen to three times its normal
>> size, my mouth caked with blood and the banding inside of said mouth
>> holding my newly-moved jaws together, I suggest therapy, quick. :)
>>
>
>Another classic guy - girl miscommunication goin' on here.
>
>Let me tell you a story. I had a good friend that I worked with. She had to
>take a day off from work to have all four wisdom teeth extracted. If you
>ever knew anybody who had this done, the cheeks swell up till you look like
>a squirrel with cheeks packed full of nuts.
>
>Your whole face swells up. And she made it clear that no pictures were to be
>taken of her when in this state. That was a challenge if ther ever was one.
>I laid in ambush and got many startled looks from my flash going off and
>catching her in her startle reflex, swollen cheek glory.
>
>And then I got prints made and put them up everywhere.
>
><evil cackle>

You're just horrid.

Lucas Buck
January 25th 05, 07:43 AM
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:33:08 GMT, Nina > wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:15:37 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>Since we are talking jpeg's here slackmistriss, are we gonna see ya when you
>>are trussed up in rubber bands??
>>
>>Puleeze???
>
>Dammit, man, my surgery's not 'til February 3rd! And if you have some
>sort of desire to see my cheeks swollen to three times its normal
>size, my mouth caked with blood and the banding inside of said mouth
>holding my newly-moved jaws together, I suggest therapy, quick. :)

Uh, maybe he was asking for jpegs of you NOW wearing nothing but
rubber bands.