The value of deadlifts

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

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, not your personal help desk.


-Adam
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

"Usenet Posting" <usenetposting.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hj9521dij01a3lq1tpdss294icv0okv1mk@4ax.com...
>
> Sissy-mary-nancypants.
>

?

Who is mary? And how did she get involved with this?

Art
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

"Charles" <charles RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:iqv3219282bf3mum4u4pnp2m91fd3jbt5j@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:36:36 -0600, khobman RemoveThis @sasktel.net (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.
> >
> >He is a she. Smart, fit and attractive to boot.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >As for Charles - I don't see how it helps the original poster by
hijacking
> >the post with shots at the regulars.
>
> This "regular" gets plenty of "shots", which don't appear to be viewed
> as "hijackings"!! ;o)
>
> >To quote the 'insane' Irishman on
> >Braveheart:
> >
> >"Answer the fooking question!"
>
> Only because she's always "fooking" doing it, whines when she gets
> similar responses, and then calls the OP's "trolls"!!
>
> If anything it's her doing the "trolling"!!
>
> England just lost to Ireland, making it three defeats in a row in the
> Six-Nation's Championships, and their worst run for 18 years!! ;o(

woot!
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:21:38 +1100, "Mick R."
<iron_sparky.RemoveThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Charles" <charles.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:iqv3219282bf3mum4u4pnp2m91fd3jbt5j@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 08:36:36 -0600, khobman.RemoveThis@sasktel.net (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.
>> >
>> >He is a she. Smart, fit and attractive to boot.
>> >
>> >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.
>> >
>> >As for Charles - I don't see how it helps the original poster by
>hijacking
>> >the post with shots at the regulars.
>>
>> This "regular" gets plenty of "shots", which don't appear to be viewed
>> as "hijackings"!! ;o)
>>
>> >To quote the 'insane' Irishman on
>> >Braveheart:
>> >
>> >"Answer the fooking question!"
>>
>> Only because she's always "fooking" doing it, whines when she gets
>> similar responses, and then calls the OP's "trolls"!!
>>
>> If anything it's her doing the "trolling"!!
>>
>> England just lost to Ireland, making it three defeats in a row in the
>> Six-Nation's Championships, and their worst run for 18 years!! ;o(
>
>woot!
>

I think we probably deserve that Mick, but it still hurts!! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

"Charles" <charles RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
news:7gi421dnvhdjejp2lm6o29ego3mkve6l4n@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:21:38 +1100, "Mick R."
> <iron_sparky RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <charles RemoveThis @msn.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> England just lost to Ireland, making it three defeats in a row in the
>>> Six-Nation's Championships, and their worst run for 18 years!! ;o(
>>
>>woot!
>>
>
> I think we probably deserve that Mick, but it still hurts!! ;o(

Or we need to have gone down the pub to moan about bloody referees not using
video replay.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:16:03 -0000, "Peter Allen"
<peteronusenet DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Charles" <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
>news:7gi421dnvhdjejp2lm6o29ego3mkve6l4n@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 06:21:38 +1100, "Mick R."
>> <iron_sparky DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Charles" <charles DeleteThis @msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> England just lost to Ireland, making it three defeats in a row in the
>>>> Six-Nation's Championships, and their worst run for 18 years!! ;o(
>>>
>>>woot!
>>>
>>
>> I think we probably deserve that Mick, but it still hurts!! ;o(
>
>Or we need to have gone down the pub to moan about bloody referees not using
>video replay.

We get no sympathy by blaming the match officials, and it won't alter
the result, but it was particularly hard to bear today, with most of
the 50-50 decisions going against us, and two perfectly good tries
disallowed!!

Add to that the fact that O'Driscoll had a foot in touch before
scoring the winning 7 points, and it will be seen that we had a torrid
day with the final score 19-13!

The 22nd November 2003 seems a very long time ago!!
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

Preacher <nono DeleteThis @way.com> 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.

If you cared about getting information from knowledgable people and you
didn't want to waste their time, you'd google before asking. It's the
considerate thing to do.

So if you don't wish to be considerate of others, why do you expect the
same?
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

Roger Zoul wrote:
> Preacher <nono.TakeThisOut@way.com> wrote:
>> elzinator <callofthewest.TakeThisOut@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.
>
> If you cared about getting information from knowledgable people and
> you didn't want to waste their time, you'd google before asking.
> It's the considerate thing to do.
>
> So if you don't wish to be considerate of others, why do you expect
> the same?

Before I came here, I didn't know Google would search Usenet. Had no idea.
And as a database programmer and broadband user since DSL first was
available here in the late '90s, I'm not particularly ignorant in the area
of computers. But...I didn't know that.

So why not just inform them that they can Google groups? Or just answer the
question? Or just ignore the question?

I like Elzi. I'm not picking on her or siding against her. In fact, I've
done this from time to time myself because I take on the mfw persona. But
what Preacher is saying is a valid point. And...I agree with him. Unless
of course it's a Bowflex post...then all bets are off!
--
-Larry
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts 

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 05:14:07 GMT, Usenet Posting
<usenetposting.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:35:24 -0600, Bob Mann <wiley48.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:15:04 GMT, "JC Der Koenig"
>><jcderkoenig.TakeThisOut@ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"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.
>>>
>>That sounds a lot like me.
>
>Thankfully I'm only sporting "bad hip". However, mine really improved
>over time and I'm pleased with the progress. However, even as I write
>this I'm feeling a bit of a twinge from some hellacious sessions on
>the stair stepper.

Bad knee, bad shoulder, getting old and choking down lots of different
medications.
All that makes me cranky.
--
Bob Mann
Help save trees. Wipe your ass with an owl.
 >> Stay informed about: The value of deadlifts