The value of deadlifts

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:15:08 GMT, "Art S" <TheDabbler01.TakeThisOut@att.net>
wrote:

>
>"Charles" <charles.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote in message news:all4215jshila712qb3knsh2t105d5mgqb@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:08:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
>> <rogerzoul2.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Charles <charles.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't need to, but that's why other people come here, they expect to
>> >> gain knowledge and discuss their fitness and weights problems.
>> >>
>> >
>> >That doesn't mean you can't try to answer a question on your own, does it?
>>
>> I don't have any questions that need answering!!
>>
>
>Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Reread the question.

Bzzzzt. Wrong interpretation. Reread the response.

Perhaps the OP meant 'one' could answer a question, but he quite
clearly personalised it to me when he said "you"!!

>
>
>> >
>> >> If Google's the answer Roger, why do we need MFW?
>> >>
>> >
>> >There are some new questions or new slants.
>>
>> In the field of Physical Training and Fitness, Training with weights
>> and other related activities, there really is rarely anything that
>> isn't already well known, apart from changes in style or what happens
>> to be in vogue.
>>
>> This means inevitably that new people will come here and ask oft
>> repeated questions. Treat them with a little dignity or leave them
>> alone is the decent thing to do.
>
>If that was what you were truely after, you would be answering the
>questions that you could in the manner you claim that they should be
>answered.

That's "truly" Art!! ;o)

I have no interest in answering repetitive questions, so I am being
consistently predictable and acting in accordance with my own advice,
by "leaving them alone" to their "dignity"!!

>
>Since you don't answer the questions, I suspect that, instead, we are
>seeing jealousy and/or envy on your part and that you troll the ones
>you are jealous/envious of.

You are now being gratuitously rude and offensive, which is nothing
more or less than "trolling". Shame on you Art, particularly as you
are normally one of the good guys!!

>
>> >
>> >Perhaps you're too sensitive to be on usenet...
>> >
>>
>> My well-known "persistence" makes that a patently way off target
>> assumption. Maybe I just introduce an all too rare element of fair
>> play and good manners, into an arena that is bristling with bloated
>> egos!!
>
>Nope.

Yep!

As your defensiveness amply illustrates!!

>
>Not even close.

Obviously "close" enough to bring you out in defence of your 'chums'!!
;o)

>
>That would require you to answer the questions that you could
>in a reasonable and helpful manner, and you steadfastly refuse to
>do that.

No it wouldn't!

It's not me that is rude to newcomers, and it's not me that patronises
them and takes the piss out of them. And it's not me that joins with
others to bully them and it's not me that attempts to make myself look
clever at their expense.

You are "trolling" again Art and if you are not very careful I may
have to seriously consider "killfiling" you!! ;o)

>
>Art
>

John

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

Quoting Charles <charles.DeleteThis@msn.com>:

[...]
>It's not me that is rude to newcomers, and it's not me that patronises
>them and takes the piss out of them. And it's not me that joins with
>others to bully them and it's not me that attempts to make myself look
>clever at their expense.
>
Hi John, did you have a helpful suggestion for the original poster on
the deadlifts?
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:27:26 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Art S" <TheDabbler01 DeleteThis @att.net> wrote in message
>news:wguUd.295259$w62.123604@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "Charles" <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:all4215jshila712qb3knsh2t105d5mgqb@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:08:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
>>> <rogerzoul2 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Charles <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> I don't need to, but that's why other people come here, they expect to
>>> >> gain knowledge and discuss their fitness and weights problems.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >That doesn't mean you can't try to answer a question on your own, does
>>> >it?
>>>
>>> I don't have any questions that need answering!!
>>>
>>
>> Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Reread the question.
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >> If Google's the answer Roger, why do we need MFW?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >There are some new questions or new slants.
>>>
>>> In the field of Physical Training and Fitness, Training with weights
>>> and other related activities, there really is rarely anything that
>>> isn't already well known, apart from changes in style or what happens
>>> to be in vogue.
>>>
>>> This means inevitably that new people will come here and ask oft
>>> repeated questions. Treat them with a little dignity or leave them
>>> alone is the decent thing to do.
>>
>> If that was what you were truely after, you would be answering the
>> questions that you could in the manner you claim that they should be
>> answered.
>>
>> Since you don't answer the questions, I suspect that, instead, we are
>> seeing jealousy and/or envy on your part and that you troll the ones
>> you are jealous/envious of.
>>
>>> >
>>> >Perhaps you're too sensitive to be on usenet...
>>> >
>>>
>>> My well-known "persistence" makes that a patently way off target
>>> assumption. Maybe I just introduce an all too rare element of fair
>>> play and good manners, into an arena that is bristling with bloated
>>> egos!!
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Not even close.
>>
>> That would require you to answer the questions that you could
>> in a reasonable and helpful manner, and you steadfastly refuse to
>> do that.
>>
>What do you expect from a troll?
>

Yaaawwwnnnnn........... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........

You boring old bastard!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

"Charles" <charles.DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ehm5215u17i64ipmv09379f4iufj4mqshe@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:27:26 -0500, "Lee Michaels"
> <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Art S" <TheDabbler01.DeleteThis@att.net> wrote in message
> >news:wguUd.295259$w62.123604@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >>
> >> "Charles" <charles.DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> news:all4215jshila712qb3knsh2t105d5mgqb@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:08:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> >>> <rogerzoul2.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Charles <charles.DeleteThis@msn.com> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I don't need to, but that's why other people come here, they expect
to
> >>> >> gain knowledge and discuss their fitness and weights problems.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >That doesn't mean you can't try to answer a question on your own,
does
> >>> >it?
> >>>
> >>> I don't have any questions that need answering!!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Reread the question.
> >>
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >> If Google's the answer Roger, why do we need MFW?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >There are some new questions or new slants.
> >>>
> >>> In the field of Physical Training and Fitness, Training with weights
> >>> and other related activities, there really is rarely anything that
> >>> isn't already well known, apart from changes in style or what happens
> >>> to be in vogue.
> >>>
> >>> This means inevitably that new people will come here and ask oft
> >>> repeated questions. Treat them with a little dignity or leave them
> >>> alone is the decent thing to do.
> >>
> >> If that was what you were truely after, you would be answering the
> >> questions that you could in the manner you claim that they should be
> >> answered.
> >>
> >> Since you don't answer the questions, I suspect that, instead, we are
> >> seeing jealousy and/or envy on your part and that you troll the ones
> >> you are jealous/envious of.
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >Perhaps you're too sensitive to be on usenet...
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> My well-known "persistence" makes that a patently way off target
> >>> assumption. Maybe I just introduce an all too rare element of fair
> >>> play and good manners, into an arena that is bristling with bloated
> >>> egos!!
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> Not even close.
> >>
> >> That would require you to answer the questions that you could
> >> in a reasonable and helpful manner, and you steadfastly refuse to
> >> do that.
> >>
> >What do you expect from a troll?
> >
>
> Yaaawwwnnnnn........... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........
>
> You boring old bastard!!
>
> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

Don;t know how you put up with him Charles - I had to killfile him long ago
just to prevent mind numbing madness!
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

"Charles" <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:pkl521th9ijtptashgfs5ojk8bodrsq0gm@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 01:15:08 GMT, "Art S" <TheDabbler01 DeleteThis @att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles" <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:all4215jshila712qb3knsh2t105d5mgqb@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:08:55 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> >> <rogerzoul2 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Charles <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't need to, but that's why other people come here, they expect
to
> >> >> gain knowledge and discuss their fitness and weights problems.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >That doesn't mean you can't try to answer a question on your own, does
it?
> >>
> >> I don't have any questions that need answering!!
> >>
> >
> >Bzzzzt. Wrong answer. Reread the question.
>
> Bzzzzt. Wrong interpretation. Reread the response.
>
> Perhaps the OP meant 'one' could answer a question, but he quite
> clearly personalised it to me when he said "you"!!
>
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> If Google's the answer Roger, why do we need MFW?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >There are some new questions or new slants.
> >>
> >> In the field of Physical Training and Fitness, Training with weights
> >> and other related activities, there really is rarely anything that
> >> isn't already well known, apart from changes in style or what happens
> >> to be in vogue.
> >>
> >> This means inevitably that new people will come here and ask oft
> >> repeated questions. Treat them with a little dignity or leave them
> >> alone is the decent thing to do.
> >
> >If that was what you were truely after, you would be answering the
> >questions that you could in the manner you claim that they should be
> >answered.
>
> That's "truly" Art!! ;o)
>
> I have no interest in answering repetitive questions, so I am being
> consistently predictable and acting in accordance with my own advice,
> by "leaving them alone" to their "dignity"!!
>
> >
> >Since you don't answer the questions, I suspect that, instead, we are
> >seeing jealousy and/or envy on your part and that you troll the ones
> >you are jealous/envious of.
>
> You are now being gratuitously rude and offensive, which is nothing
> more or less than "trolling". Shame on you Art, particularly as you
> are normally one of the good guys!!
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you're too sensitive to be on usenet...
> >> >
> >>
> >> My well-known "persistence" makes that a patently way off target
> >> assumption. Maybe I just introduce an all too rare element of fair
> >> play and good manners, into an arena that is bristling with bloated
> >> egos!!
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yep!
>
> As your defensiveness amply illustrates!!
>
> >
> >Not even close.
>
> Obviously "close" enough to bring you out in defence of your 'chums'!!
> ;o)
>
> >
> >That would require you to answer the questions that you could
> >in a reasonable and helpful manner, and you steadfastly refuse to
> >do that.
>
> No it wouldn't!
>
> It's not me that is rude to newcomers, and it's not me that patronises
> them and takes the piss out of them. And it's not me that joins with
> others to bully them and it's not me that attempts to make myself look
> clever at their expense.
>
> You are "trolling" again Art and if you are not very careful I may
> have to seriously consider "killfiling" you!! ;o)
>
> >
> >Art
> >
>
> John
>
> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

To your credit Charles, I can say that in all the time I have been
entertaining this ng I have never seen an occasion where you have trolled a
newcomer or taken the piss out of any innocent. However we see examples
every day of the so called 'reggelers' doing just that.
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:41:23 -0600, elzinator
<callofthewest RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:36:36 -0600, Hobbes wrote:
>>In article <IDkUd.67758$tl3.42581@attbi_s02>, "Steve McDevitt"
>><jorant RemoveThis @insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Charles" <charles RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message > Why would you want to respond
>>> to quite legitimate questions, even if
>>> > you do consider them to be somewhat naive, in such a hostile and
>>> > sarcastic way?
>>> >
>>> > If you don't want to discuss or help, just ignore the OP. Giving him
>>> > smug put-downs is very poor instructional technique and will only
>>> > discourage people, or make them want to respond in similar manner,
>>> > much like it did me all those years ago!!
>>> >
>>> > Don't bitch and whine again if you get it back in spades!!
>>>
>>> It's because half the people here are horrible cunts, and he's just trying
>>> to keep up with the rest of the pack. Sad. I'm glad he answered the
>>> question, even though he was rude about it. So we should be thankful for at
>>> least that much.
>>
>>
>>
>>The original poster needs to do a search on muscle contractions. Find out
>>about 'eccentric'; 'isometric' or 'static'; and 'concentric'. Just because
>>there is no apparent muscle movement doesn't mean a msucle isn't working.
>>Which was Elzi's point on the fairies.
>
>The obvious lack of thinking is what irritated me (and Before Coffee)
>
>>As for Charles - I don't see how it helps the original poster by hijacking
>>the post with shots at the regulars. To quote the 'insane' Irishman on
>>Braveheart:
>>
>>"Answer the fooking question!"
>
>You did. But Hudson likes to get his shots in on me. It's in his
>nature and I don't fit his quintessential British 'proper lady'
>stereotype.

You are not a "proper" anything Elzi darling. You merely project a
mish-mash of your own insecurities, disappointments, fantasies and
thwarted ambitions.

I feel quite sorry for you in many ways, but your persistent
abrasiveness and prickly defensiveness make it very difficult to
project any kind of sympathetic considerations!!

I expect in a real-life situation you would be a much nicer person, as
there is then nowhere to hide. It's too easy to be objectionable here
with the anonymity this medium allows us!!

>
>I can be abrasive at times, but a troll I'm not.

I'm afraid you are darling, but you prescribe to an odd range of
double-standards, whereby it's okay for you and selected chums to
behave in certain ways, but not others.

As I said many times over the years, stop trying to be so smart-arsed,
try being nice, try being yourself without all the bullshit and stop
playing to the gallery.

HTH

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:50:08 -0600, elzinator
<callofthewest.RemoveThis@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 18:28:19 -0500, Preacher wrote:
>>Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David <forgotwhy.RemoveThis@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> > The people that respond in that tone and manner are basically showing
>>> > off to their friends. If it were just you asking the question with no
>>> > gallery to perform for, the reply would be honest and helpful. People
>>> > here have a narrow range of knowledge and love to be arrogant when
>>> > they get an opportunity. This was a genuine question and deserves a
>>> > genuine reply.
>>>
>>> It's only been asked a zillion times. Google has plenty of "replies".
>>
>>Well, then maybe we don't even need a newsgroup. You can just google
>>whatever information you need on lifting, training, nutrition, etc. It's
>>all on the web somewhere.
>
>Basically, that is true.
>
>>I don't understand the offense people take at questions that have been
>>asked before.
>
>Because it gets old, real old. Especially when the information exists
>ad nauseum.
>Reread his post and think about the question.
>
>> If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. And if you
>>don't want to read it, you probably can judge from the subject that you
>>don't want to.
>
>Yup, I should have just deleted it and not posted a reply, but the
>prevalence in lack of thinking and stupidity irritates me lately.
>Especially when I have to work on a sunny Sunday and haven't had my
>coffee yet.
>
>But then I can be a real bitch sometimes and that's how I am
>sometimes. If y'all can't handle it, you can killfile me or not read
>my posts. Matters not to me.
>
>As if I'm the only one in this group that is abrasive? Oh
>please.......
>
>Continue to ream me out as you wish.

Have you any idea what "reaming out" really means?

UIM!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:57:42 -0600, elzinator
<callofthewest.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:47:42 GMT, JC Der Koenig wrote:
>>"John Hanson" <jhanson.TakeThisOut@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
>>news:eob42198sh2omvpn4hmk3k5nes4cp9a9op@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:15:04 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
>>> <jcderkoenig.TakeThisOut@ibm.com> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>"Hobbes" <khobman.TakeThisOut@sasktel.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:khobman-2702050836370001@192.168.1.100...
>>>>> In article <IDkUd.67758$tl3.42581@attbi_s02>, "Steve McDevitt"
>>>>> <jorant.TakeThisOut@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Charles" <charles.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote in message > Why would you want to
>>>>>> respond
>>>>>> to quite legitimate questions, even if
>>>>>> > you do consider them to be somewhat naive, in such a hostile and
>>>>>> > sarcastic way?
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > If you don't want to discuss or help, just ignore the OP. Giving him
>>>>>> > smug put-downs is very poor instructional technique and will only
>>>>>> > discourage people, or make them want to respond in similar manner,
>>>>>> > much like it did me all those years ago!!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Don't bitch and whine again if you get it back in spades!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's because half the people here are horrible cunts, and he's just
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to keep up with the rest of the pack. Sad. I'm glad he answered the
>>>>>> question, even though he was rude about it. So we should be thankful
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> least that much.
>>>>>
>>>>> He is a she. Smart, fit and attractive to boot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Very old, bad hips, cranky, and a drug abuser to boot.
>>>>
>>> She's got a nice ass though.
>>>
>>
>>Seems like she's being passed around, so maybe you'll get a shot.
>
>Dear Troll,
>I had two relationships with people who post or posted here. One
>before I even appeared on mfw, and with whom I met elsewhere.
>Otherwise I do not date or even entertain relationships with anyone I
>meet online. I prefer 'real' people.
>
>So, troll, you know absolutely nothing about me.
>
>So go bite yourself in the ass and look in the mirror.

That one hit the target JC - nice one!! ;o)

>
>Regards,
>The Object of Your Trolling Attempts

And very successfully!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:17:47 -0500, nono.DeleteThis@way.com (Preacher) wrote:

>elzinator <callofthewest.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> >I don't understand the offense people take at questions that have been
>> >asked before.
>>
>> Because it gets old, real old. Especially when the information exists
>> ad nauseum.
>> Reread his post and think about the question.
>
>I just reread it. His question doesn't bother me - maybe because I'm
>something of a newbie myself. I can imagine that if I were as
>knowledgeable as you and had heard the question a million times, it
>might be tiresome.
>
>> > If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. And if you
>> >don't want to read it, you probably can judge from the subject that you
>> >don't want to.
>>
>> Yup, I should have just deleted it and not posted a reply, but the
>> prevalence in lack of thinking and stupidity irritates me lately.
>> Especially when I have to work on a sunny Sunday and haven't had my
>> coffee yet.
>>
>> But then I can be a real bitch sometimes and that's how I am
>> sometimes. If y'all can't handle it, you can killfile me or not read
>> my posts. Matters not to me.
>>
>> As if I'm the only one in this group that is abrasive? Oh
>> please.......
>>
>> Continue to ream me out as you wish.
>
>Didn't mean to ream you out or to single you out as particularly
>abrasive. For that, I apologize. I want to be treated with respect, and
>I certainly want to extend the same courtesy to you.
>
>Ironically, I think I am impatient with the kind of impatience that is
>sometimes shown in the group towards the beginning lifter. I EXPECT most
>questions to be relatively basic to those who are more expert; newbies
>are full of questions, sometimes dumb, naive ones that aren't well
>thought out. We come to the group hoping to find someone who is
>knowledgeable and helpful.
>
>Of course we could google the answer or read a bunch of books. The
>knowledge is always available to someone who is determined enough and
>has some sense of where to look. But sometimes, you just have a
>question, and you figure someone else might know the answer, so you ask.
>Doesn't seem like that should be an offensive thing to do in a usenet
>newsgroup.
>
>I wouldn't want to killfile you. You are a knowledgeable and
>wellrespected source of information - when you care to be informative.
>But I'll admit that I can do without the "google is your friend - we are
>not" attitude that is so commonly celebrated in the group.

Good response and well summed up Preacher.

It is well enough to accord respect to those that are consistently
respectful to others!!

If you want good advice without all the abrasive behaviour ask
Hobbes, who has the patience of Job and is always knowledgeable and
pleasant!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

Charles <charles RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:17:47 -0500, nono RemoveThis @way.com (Preacher) wrote:
>
>>elzinator <callofthewest RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> >I don't understand the offense people take at questions that have
>>> >been asked before.
>>>
>>> Because it gets old, real old. Especially when the information
>>> exists ad nauseum.
>>> Reread his post and think about the question.
>>
>>I just reread it. His question doesn't bother me - maybe because I'm
>>something of a newbie myself. I can imagine that if I were as
>>knowledgeable as you and had heard the question a million times, it
>>might be tiresome.
>>
>>> > If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. And if you
>>> >don't want to read it, you probably can judge from the subject
>>> >that you don't want to.
>>>
>>> Yup, I should have just deleted it and not posted a reply, but the
>>> prevalence in lack of thinking and stupidity irritates me lately.
>>> Especially when I have to work on a sunny Sunday and haven't had my
>>> coffee yet.
>>>
>>> But then I can be a real bitch sometimes and that's how I am
>>> sometimes. If y'all can't handle it, you can killfile me or not read
>>> my posts. Matters not to me.
>>>
>>> As if I'm the only one in this group that is abrasive? Oh
>>> please.......
>>>
>>> Continue to ream me out as you wish.
>>
>>Didn't mean to ream you out or to single you out as particularly
>>abrasive. For that, I apologize. I want to be treated with respect,
>>and
>>I certainly want to extend the same courtesy to you.
>>
>>Ironically, I think I am impatient with the kind of impatience that is
>>sometimes shown in the group towards the beginning lifter. I EXPECT
>>most questions to be relatively basic to those who are more expert;
>>newbies are full of questions, sometimes dumb, naive ones that aren't
>>well thought out. We come to the group hoping to find someone who is
>>knowledgeable and helpful.
>>
>>Of course we could google the answer or read a bunch of books. The
>>knowledge is always available to someone who is determined enough and
>>has some sense of where to look. But sometimes, you just have a
>>question, and you figure someone else might know the answer, so you
>>ask. Doesn't seem like that should be an offensive thing to do in a
>>usenet newsgroup.
>>
>>I wouldn't want to killfile you. You are a knowledgeable and
>>wellrespected source of information - when you care to be informative.
>>But I'll admit that I can do without the "google is your friend - we
>>are not" attitude that is so commonly celebrated in the group.
>
> Good response and well summed up Preacher.

No it isn't.

>
> It is well enough to accord respect to those that are consistently
> respectful to others!!
>
> If you want good advice without all the abrasive behaviour ask
> Hobbes, who has the patience of Job and is always knowledgeable and
> pleasant!!
>
> Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:57:56 GMT, Adam Fahy <mailme RemoveThis @myobligatory.com>
wrote:

>Preacher wrote:
>> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>It's only been asked a zillion times. Google has plenty of "replies".
>
>> Well, then maybe we don't even need a newsgroup. You can just google
>> whatever information you need on lifting, training, nutrition, etc. It's
>> all on the web somewhere.
>
>What's your point? This is a discussion group,

Er... that's what he assumed!!

>not your personal help desk.

That's not what he assumed!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

Charles <charles RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:57:56 GMT, Adam Fahy <mailme RemoveThis @myobligatory.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Preacher wrote:
>>> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>It's only been asked a zillion times. Google has plenty of
>>>>"replies".
>>
>>> Well, then maybe we don't even need a newsgroup. You can just google
>>> whatever information you need on lifting, training, nutrition, etc.
>>> It's all on the web somewhere.
>>
>>What's your point? This is a discussion group,
>
> Er... that's what he assumed!!
>
>>not your personal help desk.
>
> That's not what he assumed!!

Sure he did. He could have googled first and then asked follow on questions
here.
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 23:21:41 -0800, "Larry Hodges"
<2larry2 DeleteThis @2maximizesoftware2.com> wrote:

>Preacher wrote:
>> Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> The people that respond in that tone and manner are basically
>>>> showing off to their friends. If it were just you asking the
>>>> question with no gallery to perform for, the reply would be honest
>>>> and helpful. People here have a narrow range of knowledge and love
>>>> to be arrogant when they get an opportunity. This was a genuine
>>>> question and deserves a genuine reply.
>>>
>>> It's only been asked a zillion times. Google has plenty of
>>> "replies".
>>
>> Well, then maybe we don't even need a newsgroup. You can just google
>> whatever information you need on lifting, training, nutrition, etc.
>> It's all on the web somewhere.
>>
>> I don't understand the offense people take at questions that have been
>> asked before. If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. And if
>> you don't want to read it, you probably can judge from the subject
>> that you don't want to.
>
>Good point. Many...most...people don't know how to use Google. They find
>this place and ask their question. I see no reason to mock them. Maybe
>give them a url to Google groups or something useful, but not mock them.

Not too difficult to grasp is it Larry, so why is it we have a
'culture' here where some think it's fun to mock people seeking
advice?

Did you have a good weekend - if you know what I mean, nudge nudge
wink wink, say no more, know what I mean Squire!! ;o)

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts