Gun books recommendations

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Bully" <bully19 RemoveThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
news:5175r5F1ir3sfU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:rtlsq2d3sptu1ls29sln4av0iva1m3o49s@4ax.com,
> Shute <Shute RemoveThis @nowhere.com> typed:
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:29 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>> <edna_pearl RemoveThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Shute" <Shute RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fijsq215k3i7h24dh6978trgr8elda0d24@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:52:16 +0000 (UTC), DZ
>>>> <8641 RemoveThis @2893123070.1773512763.92.31626.29952> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shute <Shute RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Anderson <twic RemoveThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness,
>>>>>>>> in a general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the
>>>>>>>> post should have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it
>>>>>>>> relates to fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each
>>>>>>>> '.', left to right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>>>>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize
>>>>>> something you are going to start with the most general topic and
>>>>>> then work to something more specific.
>>>>>
>>>>> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in
>>>>> more detail?
>>>>
>>>> Your the last person I would expect to ask that so I can only
>>>> suspect it a trick question. This isn't a very good group to use
>>>> as an example. It is easiest to see in graphical form:
>>>>
>>>> misc
>>>> |
>>>> fitness
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>> | | | | |
>>>> aerobic misc walking weightlifting weights
>>>>
>>>> If you where to add say nautilus it would go into a subgroup of
>>>> either weights or weightlifting. Other misc groups would be
>>>> parallel to fitness but not connected with the fitness sub
>>>> categories. So weights falls under fitness which in turn falls
>>>> under misc. Does that make sense now? With groups like:
>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.coby.hamster.ductape
>>>
>>> My god, it's actually on my server. I thought you were shitting me.
>>>
>>> ep
>>> (well, let's go see what that's all about)
>>
>> Well be careful. Many people inhabit dead groups who don't want to
>> be found.
>
> Is Ronnie Biggs out there hiding in one of them? Or did he die? What about
> Jim Morrison? Elvis?
>
>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>
> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>
>> And even when the
>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>
> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?

(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
you.)

ep
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

John Williams wrote:
> "J. Gleixner" wrote:
[...]

> >>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?

D'OH!

New here, Gleix?

> A little advice for your learning experience in THIS newsgroup:

Oh, like you, John Williams, are the paragon of newsgroup virtue! The
font of exemplary behavior! Yes, a peerless example of how to get along
in a virtual environment! HARDYHARHAR!!!!

> The people in this newsgroup who are mostly likely to discuss firearms
> just happen to be some of the most knowledgeable people in the
> newsgroup when it comes to training and nutrition.

And?

> I'm not trying to draw a correlation; that's just how it is.

How it is, Johnny, is that you're something of a TITP at times.

> And those same people often join in firearms discussions because
> they are just plain bored with the discussions of the more basic
> issues in weight training and nutrition. After all, there are plenty
> of newbies, anxious for recognition, who are going to jump all over
> that stuff, anyway.

Like you're not anxious for recognition. Once again, imo, you've proven
yourself something very much like a hypocrite.

> So, depending on what you hope to learn here, you might want to take
> that into consideration. Those who are not discussing what you want
> to read at the moment aren't necessarily those who know the least
> about the subject in which you're interested.

Next time just say he's a dick for dissing Om. And, yeah, guns, dogs,
politics, yadayada are all neatly within the boundaries of misc.

> HTH

Helps you to sound even more pompous than usual? I'd say so.

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a)" <phoutstra.RemoveThis@wanadoo.nl> wrote
> "Shute" <Shute.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> schreef:
>
>> Hmm, do I see a trend here.
>
> Me too!
>
>> All those are women's things except for
>> the knives.
>
> These weighlifting types are bunch of homosexuals!
>
>>I take it you just threw that in so no one would notice
>> you in the closet there. You can come out know David. We don't mind
>> if you want to talk about tampons and water retention.
>
> Water retention is not so bad.
>
> Whats BAD are those cute little, nice and shiny guns, caliber .177. THATS
> bad!

Pete, could you please explain to Shute the difference between "cosmology"
and "cosmetology"?

I don't speak Dumberthanrock, but maybe with your accent, he'll understand a
word or two.

Don't bother explaining why admiring the physical attributes of Faith Hill,
Martina McBride, Shania Twain, etcetera, is a heterosexual male thought
process. Some things are just too stupid to bother with.

Thanks.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Shute" <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:hmtsq2pm5g44pq1bmsbe87912quc2hkoso@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
> <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bully" <bully19 DeleteThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
>>news:5175r5F1ir3sfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> In news:rtlsq2d3sptu1ls29sln4av0iva1m3o49s@4ax.com,
>>> Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> typed:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:47:29 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>>>> <edna_pearl DeleteThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Shute" <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fijsq215k3i7h24dh6978trgr8elda0d24@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:52:16 +0000 (UTC), DZ
>>>>>> <8641 DeleteThis @2893123070.1773512763.92.31626.29952> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shute <Shute DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Anderson <twic DeleteThis @urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness,
>>>>>>>>>> in a general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the
>>>>>>>>>> post should have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it
>>>>>>>>>> relates to fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each
>>>>>>>>>> '.', left to right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>>>>>>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize
>>>>>>>> something you are going to start with the most general topic and
>>>>>>>> then work to something more specific.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in
>>>>>>> more detail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your the last person I would expect to ask that so I can only
>>>>>> suspect it a trick question. This isn't a very good group to use
>>>>>> as an example. It is easiest to see in graphical form:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> misc
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> fitness
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> |
>>>>>> --------------------------------------
>>>>>> | | | | |
>>>>>> aerobic misc walking weightlifting weights
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you where to add say nautilus it would go into a subgroup of
>>>>>> either weights or weightlifting. Other misc groups would be
>>>>>> parallel to fitness but not connected with the fitness sub
>>>>>> categories. So weights falls under fitness which in turn falls
>>>>>> under misc. Does that make sense now? With groups like:
>>>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.coby.hamster.ductape
>>>>>
>>>>> My god, it's actually on my server. I thought you were shitting me.
>>>>>
>>>>> ep
>>>>> (well, let's go see what that's all about)
>>>>
>>>> Well be careful. Many people inhabit dead groups who don't want to
>>>> be found.
>>>
>>> Is Ronnie Biggs out there hiding in one of them? Or did he die? What
>>> about
>>> Jim Morrison? Elvis?
>>>
>>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>>
>>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>>
>>>> And even when the
>>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>>
>>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>>you.)
>>
>>ep
>>
>
> Are we all in J. Gleixner killfile yet?

I guess so. I noticed he suddenly got pretty quiet.

ep
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
<edna_pearl.TakeThisOut@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

>"Bully" <bully19.TakeThisOut@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
[...]

>>
>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>
>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>
>>> And even when the
>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>
>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>
>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>you.)
>

You appear to be very easily pleased Edna dear.

Of course your hero worship now means that we will probably have to
endure more of the Bully boy's banalities, as he whets his bullying
appetite on the smallest chap in the school playground, with a silly
little girl shrieking misguided approval.

I thought you had more substance than that, but the inappropriate
apostrophe in "it's" [sic] probably speaks volumes.
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Charles" <jrh RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:hhusq293j1ghrmd4q8562maq8bdnflob38@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
> <edna_pearl RemoveThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bully" <bully19 RemoveThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
> [...]
>
>>>
>>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>>
>>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>>
>>>> And even when the
>>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>>
>>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>>
>>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>>you.)
>>
>
> You appear to be very easily pleased Edna dear.
>
> Of course your hero worship now means that we will probably have to
> endure more of the Bully boy's banalities, as he whets his bullying
> appetite on the smallest chap in the school playground, with a silly
> little girl shrieking misguided approval.
>
> I thought you had more substance than that, but the inappropriate
> apostrophe in "it's" [sic] probably speaks volumes.

Somebody finally is ragging on me about a typo in one of my posts! Thank
god! I can relax now. It''''''''s like when you get a new car, you should
just go ahead and take a hammer to it so you don't have to worry about
scratching the finish any more. My grammatical accuracy has taken a nice
ding, and now I can relax. Thanks, Charles

ep
(who always allows otters to work in)
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:06:30 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
<edna_pearl RemoveThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

>"Charles" <jrh RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
>news:hhusq293j1ghrmd4q8562maq8bdnflob38@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>> <edna_pearl RemoveThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bully" <bully19 RemoveThis @proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
>> [...]
>>
>>>>
>>>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>>>
>>>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>>>
>>>>> And even when the
>>>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>>>>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>>>>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>>>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>>>
>>>(I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>>>interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank you thank
>>>you.)
>>>
>>
>> You appear to be very easily pleased Edna dear.
>>
>> Of course your hero worship now means that we will probably have to
>> endure more of the Bully boy's banalities, as he whets his bullying
>> appetite on the smallest chap in the school playground, with a silly
>> little girl shrieking misguided approval.
>>
>> I thought you had more substance than that, but the inappropriate
>> apostrophe in "it's" [sic] probably speaks volumes.
>
>Somebody finally is ragging on me about a typo in one of my posts!

No Edna my dear, that's not a "typo", that's a typical and much used
grammatical error by people who are confused by the whole "its"
vis-à-vis "it's" conundrum. It's about as bad as the misuse of "lose"
and "loose", which is also much in evidence in this group.

>Thank god! I can relax now. It''''''''s like when you get a new car, you should
>just go ahead and take a hammer to it so you don't have to worry about
>scratching the finish any more. My grammatical accuracy has taken a nice
>ding, and now I can relax.

A valiant attempt at a sophisticated come-back Edna dear, but it fools
no-one who has a firm grasp of the English language and a thorough
knowledge of Usenet bullshitters! ;o)

>Thanks, Charles

My pleasure my dear; I doubt you'll fall into the trap again!;o)
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 20:36:12 -0000, "Bully"
<bully19.RemoveThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:

>In news:Elvrh.4388$FL5.2606@bignews3.bellsouth.net,
>Edna Pearl <edna_pearl.RemoveThis@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> typed:
>> "Charles" <jrh.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:hhusq293j1ghrmd4q8562maq8bdnflob38@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:29:22 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>>> <edna_pearl.RemoveThis@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Bully" <bully19.RemoveThis@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote in message
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>>>>>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>>>>>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.
>>>>>
>>>>> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?
>>>>>
>>>>>> And even when the
>>>>>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where
>>>>>> this guy was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic
>>>>>> entertainment. I don't remember the name of the group but I
>>>>>> guess it was on topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
>>>>> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?
>>>>
>>>> (I hesitate to even post my appreciation of this thread for fear of
>>>> interrupting it's ever-increasing hilarity. But thank you thank
>>>> you thank you.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You appear to be very easily pleased Edna dear.
>>>
>>> Of course your hero worship now means that we will probably have to
>>> endure more of the Bully boy's banalities, as he whets his bullying
>>> appetite on the smallest chap in the school playground, with a silly
>>> little girl shrieking misguided approval.
>>>
>>> I thought you had more substance than that, but the inappropriate
>>> apostrophe in "it's" [sic] probably speaks volumes.
>>
>> Somebody
>
>Not a somebody, a nobody.

I take that as a compliment Bully boy, as we all know that "nobody" is
perfect!! ;o)

You make a better straight man feed than you do a comedian, so keep
them coming matey!
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

"Bully" <bully19.RemoveThis@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

> Is Ronnie Biggs out there hiding in one of them? Or did he die? What about
> Jim Morrison? Elvis?

Jim Morrison came back here using the name "Robert Schuh."

>> I remember years ago someone mentioning:
>> alt.binaries.pictures.asparagus
>> The group was full of disturbing kiddie porn.

> As opposed to what other type of kiddie porn?

Eh... The *NONE* disturbing kind?

Remember, i am here to help.

>> And even when the
>> topics are on target they can be disturbing. I saw one where this guy
>> was posting pictures of young chickens for erotic entertainment. I
>> don't remember the name of the group but I guess it was on topic.

> Ok, so if it was ON TOPIC, we can only presume you were in a
> chicken-shaggers newsgroup -- right?

Fair statement, yes.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Shute wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:51:33 +0000 (UTC), DZ
> <17424.RemoveThis@148619873.10909663.605.7508.16545> wrote:
>
>> Shute <Shute.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> DZ wrote:
>>>> Shute <Shute.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> Tom Anderson <twic.RemoveThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>>>>>> J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness, in a
>>>>>>> general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the post should
>>>>>>> have some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it relates to
>>>>>>> fitness. The topic becomes more specific at each '.', left to
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or
>>>>>> something. This stuff is way over my head.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not really that hard to understand. When you categorize something
>>>>> you are going to start with the most general topic and then work to
>>>>> something more specific.
>>>>
>>>> It still sounds too complicated. Could you elaborate on that in more
>>>> detail?
>>>
>>> Your the last person I would expect to ask that so I can only suspect
>>> it a trick question. This isn't a very good group to use as an
>>> example. It is easiest to see in graphical form:
>>>
>>> misc
>>> |
>>> fitness
>>> |
>>> |
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> | | | | |
>>> aerobic misc walking weightlifting weights
>>>
>>> If you where to add say nautilus it would go into a subgroup of either
>>> weights or weightlifting. Other misc groups would be parallel to
>>> fitness but not connected with the fitness sub categories. So
>>> weights falls under fitness which in turn falls under misc. Does
>>> that make sense now?
>>
>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
>
> Now I know your pulling my leg.

You really are a perceptive chap, i must say!

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations 

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, David Cohen wrote:

> Or the superiority of country singing women.

Cohen, i appreciate that you're completely insane, but seriously: what?

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!
 >> Stay informed about: Gun books recommendations