newbie group question

JMWtf-is-he-trying-to-say? <jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com>
wrote:

[...]

>This Lyle can and should his own name as he pleases.

Are you even speaking English?

....

This Lyle can and should WHAT?

Use, choose, define, determine, write? Pick one and try again.

And didn't you call someone a dumbass recently? Pot meet Kettle,
naturally.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMWHAT?!! <jmwilliams.RemoveThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

[...]

>Personally, I prefer the non-proprietary anarchy of Usenet.

Bullshit. Your little troll faq is evidence that you're less than
anarchy-friendly.

>No guru webmasters to worship

Bullshit. You worship at the alter of pubmed.

>or "moderators" to worry about contradicting.

Bullshit. You've attempted to assign yourself moderator status, imo,
yet you contradict yourself repeatedly.

>No membership sign-ups. No retarded avatars, self-aggrandizing
>profiles,

Bullshit. Rustybutton.org or whatever your self-aggrandizing pop
fitness Web site is called.

>or pompous enumerations of user postings. Usenet has become
>the underground that newbie web dorks don't even know about and
>stumble into largely by mistake, calling a newsgroup a "board," or
>"list," or "room."

Bullshit. And semantics! As if it matters what you call this place.

>Long live Usenet!

Shut up, Emmy. You epitomize much of what's wrong with Usenet.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMW wrote:

> Golly! You're so hip and chic, Wendy!

That's Wendell to you, Big Boy.

> Personally, I prefer the non-proprietary anarchy of Usenet. No guru
> webmasters to worship or "moderators" to worry about contradicting.
> No membership sign-ups. No retarded avatars, self-aggrandizing
> profiles, or pompous enumerations of user postings. Usenet has become
> the underground that newbie web dorks don't even know about and
> stumble into largely by mistake, calling a newsgroup a "board," or
> "list," or "room."
>
> Long live Usenet!

Actually, I agree. It's too hard on Livejournal to wander across the
unexpected. Instead of our model of a neighborhood bar model where
anyone can walk in, Livejournal is more like a hotel where everyone is
in their own private room and you gradually find out who is where when
they come out to interact in a lobby or function room. Many, many, many
rooms are locked and you can only get in if you know to ask. It does a
lovely job of keeping out trolls, but an awful job of meeting new people.

Dally
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMW <jmwilliams.DeleteThis@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

> Long live Usenet!

I totally agree.
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:12:12 -0400, Curt James <cwj111.TakeThisOut@psu.edu> wrote:

>JMWHAT?!! <jmwilliams.TakeThisOut@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Personally, I prefer the non-proprietary anarchy of Usenet.
>
>Bullshit. Your little troll faq is evidence that you're less than
>anarchy-friendly.
>
>>No guru webmasters to worship
>
>Bullshit. You worship at the alter of pubmed.
>
>>or "moderators" to worry about contradicting.
>
>Bullshit. You've attempted to assign yourself moderator status, imo,
>yet you contradict yourself repeatedly.
>
>>No membership sign-ups. No retarded avatars, self-aggrandizing
>>profiles,
>
>Bullshit. Rustybutton.org or whatever your self-aggrandizing pop
>fitness Web site is called.
>
>>or pompous enumerations of user postings. Usenet has become
>>the underground that newbie web dorks don't even know about and
>>stumble into largely by mistake, calling a newsgroup a "board," or
>>"list," or "room."
>
>Bullshit. And semantics! As if it matters what you call this place.
>
>>Long live Usenet!
>
>Shut up, Emmy. You epitomize much of what's wrong with Usenet.
>

Well said Curt; you saved me the trouble of responding to the
hypocritical tithead!

Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

David Cohen wrote:
> "lyle" <lgoldstein27.DeleteThis@nyc.rr.com> wrote
>> I am newbie and lurked for a little while. I thought I post a question
>> (I hope I dont get killed). I joined a small basement gym last year and
>> have a workout partner. We have progressed on the barbell bench press
>> to about 240lbs (with bar). Not a full set of 10 but about 5 clean
>> after pyramiding up from lower weights. We also did db presses.
>> The genius owners of the gym decided to upgrade and since its a
>> basement gym they replaced the barbell bench with a smith machine 2
>> months ago. My partner and I figured the weight of smith machine bar
>> was about 15-20 pounds and compensated for it by adding more weight. We
>> also continued to do db presses. We could comfortably do db presses 80
>> lbs flat and probably 90lb with assistance.
>> We recently went to another gym and did the barbell bench press and we
>> could do no more 6 reps of 195lbs.
>> Anybody ever had this experience? I dont think I lost any strength
>> because I could db presses around the same weight I was doing when I
>> was benching 240lbs. Could smith machine really screw you up that bad?
>
> Yes. More accurately, there is no consistent correlation between weight
> moved on a Smith machine version of any free weight exercise and the actual
> free weight exercise. The linear, single plane, stabilized movement of the
> Smith machine has two effects: negating any possibility of comparison to
> free weights, and, the really bad news, greatly increases the risk to the
> joints involved, especially shoulder.
>
> I have no problem with a gym owner adding Smith machines, because that's
> what the public wants, but any gym that actually replaces a free weight
> barbell bench with a Smith machine needs to be your former gym.
>
> We used to have a regular poster here named Lyle. In the Way Back Time. He
> has not, at least, joined the "Former MFW Regulars That Make National News
> And Go To Prison" Club. It was, to say the least, a more...uh,
> interesting...group back then. I won't hold you to those standards
>
> If you've lurked for a while, you should have figured out by now that MFW
> has a large number of trolls, troll enablers, and those who like to respond
> to trolls. Try not to become entangled, or you'll miss out on my wise, sage,
> extraordinarily modest, advice.
>
> David
>
>

Addendum: we also enjoy David's annual Easter apology on behalf of the
International Zionist Conspiracy for off'g Jesus.

Richard
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

Charles wrote:
>
> He is in his early 50's and still only a humble assistant public
> prosecutor, in a small town in Ohio.

<sigh> As humble as that may be, I suppose it is better than being an
old drunk in his early 60's, who retired from an uneventful career in
the navy and is now as useless as a teat on a boar hog.
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

Richard <Vidasduday RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

[...]

re Emmy

>Isn't he in Law Enforcement? BB filled rubber hoses division
>or somesuch?

Iirc, he's a legal assistant... with a fascination with commenting on
anal licking. Weird.

But, hey, it's really unfair to judge.

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

JMWho's-a-vet-and-who's-not? <jmwilliams_56.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

><snip> an uneventful career in the navy and <snip>

There's no such thing as an uneventful career in the navy, Em. And are
you a veteran of any branch of the armed forces?

Serving five years in the U.S. Navy, I had the opportunity to travel
across Europe and the Med as well as points south such as Jamaica, the
Bahamas, and Cuba. Closer to my neck of the woods, we visited Nova
Scotia and Philadelphia.

Uneventful? No.

Oh, wait, you're a Vietnam hero, right?

This is a perfect opportunity for you if you served. Oh, heck, it's
perfect for you if you didN'T serve. (Just pretend this post was
blocked by your superior kill filters. HAW!)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On 19 Jun 2006 10:22:41 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>>
>> He is in his early 50's and still only a humble assistant public
>> prosecutor, in a small town in Ohio.
>
><sigh> As humble as that may be, I suppose it is better than being an
>old drunk in his early 60's, who retired from an uneventful career in
>the navy and is now as useless as a teat on a boar hog.

How the mighty are fallen!

The "Trollmeister" is reduced to swapping banal insults with his arch
enemy, and making it up as he goes along!

How's that for some skilful "trolling" then John Williams? The "old
drunk in his early 60's", whom the "Trollmeister" has stated
categorically that he has "killfiled", has got the Group's only *real*
"troll* to respond direct to his nemesis with a heap of childish
insults!!

Fifteen two that you old bastard!! ;o)
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On 19 Jun 2006 10:22:41 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56.RemoveThis@yahoo.com>
"trolled again:

>>Charles wrote:
>>>Richard <Vidasduday.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Isn't he in Law Enforcement? BB filled rubber hoses division or somesuch?
>>
>
>>Thankfully not, although he did used to refer to himself here as 'The
>>Enforcer'! If he were loosed upon the streets with a gun and the
>>authority to use it, under the guise of "Law Enforcement", there would
>>be mayhem, for there is no doubt that he is very capable of hurting
>>people - if he can get away with it!
>
>>He is in his early 50's and still only a humble assistant public
>>prosecutor, in a small town in Ohio.

><sigh> As humble as that may be, I suppose it is better than being an
>old drunk in his early 60's, who retired from an uneventful career in
>the navy and is now as useless as a teat on a boar hog.

How the mighty are fallen!

The "Trollmeister" is reduced to swapping banal insults with his arch
enemy, and making it up as he goes along!

How's that for some skilful "trolling" then John Williams? The "old
drunk in his early 60's", whom the "Trollmeister" has stated
categorically that he has "killfiled", has got the Group's only *real*
"troll* to respond direct to his nemesis with a heap of childish
insults!!

Fifteen two that you old bastard!! ;o)

>>It is obvious that he is not
>>overstretched at that mediocre level, given the time he spends
>>stalking people on the Internet, and the time and energy he devotes to
>knowing everything in order to be an 'expert' on every topic under the
>>sun. <snigger>
>
>>He's not what one would describe as a nice person, and should be kept
>>at arm's length and given a good kick in the bollocks from time to
>>time.
>
>>HTH! ;o)

I noticed your selective snipping and thought I'd put it all back
again, just to show what a cunning and vain old twot you really are!

I just thought you ought to know that!

;o)
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

Charles <jrh.RemoveThis@msn.com> wrote:

[...]

>Yet John Williams <snip>

Who?

>Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(

Well, we made it through another one, though, eh? YES!

Onward to... THE WEEKEND!

(It's just 'round the bend.)

--
Curt
http://curtjames.com/
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question 

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:18:52 -0400, Curt James <cwj111.DeleteThis@psu.edu> wrote:

>JMWho's-a-vet-and-who's-not? <jmwilliams_56.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>><snip> an uneventful career in the navy and <snip>
>
>There's no such thing as an uneventful career in the navy, Em. And are
>you a veteran of any branch of the armed forces?

The nearest he ever got/gets, is watching re-runs of John Wayne taking
Bataan!! ;o)

John Williams wouldn't last 5 minutes in the Armed Forces!
 >> Stay informed about: newbie group question