Creatine and heart

Is heart hypertrophy associated with creatine?

Also, suppose you have a low bf % and you can see good definition in your
arms. If you started taking creatine for a slight increase in size, would
your arms just get soft and look fat - would you lose the definition? My
guess is that since the muscles become a lot softer, you would lose much of
the definition.

Richard

Richard wrote:
> Is heart hypertrophy associated with creatine?

No.

> Also, suppose you have a low bf % and you can see good definition in your
> arms. If you started taking creatine for a slight increase in size, would
> your arms just get soft and look fat - would you lose the definition?

No.

> My
> guess is that since the muscles become a lot softer, you would lose much of
> the definition.

Bad guess.

> Richard

Yes, I agree, you are Richard.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165732368.365142.27350@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Richard wrote:
>> Is heart hypertrophy associated with creatine?
>
> No.
>
>> Also, suppose you have a low bf % and you can see good definition in your
>> arms. If you started taking creatine for a slight increase in size, would
>> your arms just get soft and look fat - would you lose the definition?
>
> No.
>
>> My
>> guess is that since the muscles become a lot softer, you would lose much
>> of
>> the definition.
>
> Bad guess.
>
>> Richard
>
> Yes, I agree, you are Richard.
>

As you can likely tell, David Cohen is one of the more prominent and
ignerint character-disordered assaholics in this group.

I'm neither pro nor con creatine--actually thinking of fooling around with
it, but only in the 100-500 mg level, and for different reasons than most
here.
See some recent threads here on creatine.
Seems like a lot of the studies are biased, some, from prominent people,
bald-facedly funded by supplement companies. Doesn't mean the studies are
invalid, but c'mon, give us a break...

A fascinating site, but whose credibility I can't vouch for, is
http://www.nutritionalsupplements.com/creatineR108.html

It would seem to be legit. A must read on creatine.
Weightlifting itself is associated w/ heart hypertrophy.
But the site above cites some very interesting effects on the heart, some
pretty unnerving, one or two actually good.

Now, the wannabee scientists/professional jerkoffs in the this group
(brinks, cohen, jmw et al) pooh-pooh anecdotal evidence the way an atheist
dismisses religion, but anecdotal evidence can be very powerful--if it is
unbiased. I'll go with good anecdotal over half-assed "research" any day of
the week.
Remember Cold Fusion.
And the fact that Watson stole the Nobel Prize (DNA) from Linus Pauling.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



> David
>
>

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> And the fact that Watson stole the Nobel Prize (DNA) from Linus Pauling.

Okay, first explain what this has to do with the createenies allegedly
ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then explain what the hell you mean
by the statement anyway.

And then explain why you think it was Watson rather than Crick!

tom

--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -- Alan Kay

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0612102024500.22811@urchin.eart h.li...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
>> And the fact that Watson stole the Nobel Prize (DNA) from Linus Pauling.
>
> Okay, first explain what this has to do with the createenies allegedly
> ignoring evidence to the contrary,

I'm so glad someone axed!!

First, the wannabee statement was not directed at you, or anyone else who
discusses issues vs issuing edicts. fwiw.
Next, the point was this:
I have noticed over the years a curious unreliability among the "experts", a
curious missing of the point, oftentimes. It's sort of like Consumers
Report, the bastion of objectivity, who still don't get it right.
I've bought several of their best buys, read their reviews on cars I've
owned, and more often than not I'm left muttering, WTF?? Who did this
review???
Ditto software reviews, etc.
These people are just sticking words together in sentences, sentences into
paragraphs, paragraphs into an article, and tryna get paid. Ask brink.
Ditto stuff I *know* to be true in nutrition, from either direct
experimentation (simple stuff), or first-hand observation, or second-hand
reports from very reliable sources--none of which will ever make it to
journals, or from direct application of basic principles (the ones brink and
jmw don't have a fukn clue about).
And I've found anecdotal off-the-wall stuff to be right-on.

What's the solution?
Don't know. Wide-open eyeballs, I would imagine, but often that is not even
enough, given the ubiquitous sleight of hand,and the amount of training
req'd to even process the data.
At this point/position in time/culture, there may be no solution.
We may be way way way past the point of mis-informational return.

So the point was, everyfuknbody in sports-proper SWEARS by creatine.
A few will grudgingly acknowledge side-effects, and quickly pass them off as
unimportant.

Yet, here is a collection of, I think, *hundreds* of feedbacks on creatine,
guestimating about 75% negative, and about 1/3 of those seriously so.
And almost everyone I've personally talked to had complaints, and eventually
stopped using it.
Yet the the majority of the """studies""" give the proverbial green light.

Now, suppose this site is legit, suppose these feedbacks are statistically
representative.
What then?
Another black eye for science??
What about the friggin assholes who confirmed Cold Fusion. goodgawd....


> and then explain what the hell you mean
> by the statement anyway.

I gather you disagree.
By now, you should be familiar w/ my refrain, Remember Cold Fusion, and
Watson the Thief.
The point being that science is not some love of g-d learning/discovery
shit.
It's a bidniss, and a corrupt one.
The question is, How corrupt?

My own personal opinion is that science took a precipitous turn downward
after 1953.
The Nobel prize should not have even been awarded for DNA, because it was
not a discovery, it was an Easter egghunt.
And Pauling was 10 minutes away from finding sed egg.
If it was to be awarded, there are at least a dozen players who should have
shared in it, including Pauling, for his preliminary elucidation of the
structure, which was exactly correct, ceptin for the position of the
phosphate backbone. In a few minutes, w/ Franklin's data, he would have
corrected it.
If you recall (iirc), Pauling had *already* deduced the structure of
alpha-keratin, a *triple-helix* of protein. (!!!)

And this view on dna, science in general is not my lone opinion, but one
that is shared by a few nobel laureates.

>
> And then explain why you think it was Watson rather than Crick!

1. Because, I think, Watson said so, in his Double Helix.
2. Crick was too busy doing calculations'n'shit, whilst Watson was
galavanting about the globe
a. playing tennis b. fornicating w/ pert near anything that walked on 2
legs c. Picking real researchers' brains/pilfering data d.
intercepting data f. promoting hisself g. preparing his Nobel
acceptance speech h,i,j,k, etc.
3. But, it coulda been Crick. Dudn't much matter.

Invent the future indeed.
Then sell it.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs


>
> tom
>
> --
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -- Alan Kay
>

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
<snip...nobody really cares what Boring Douchebag Troll writes>

You planning on staying? Did sci.med.nutrition find some high tech
troll repellant that forced you to leave? And do you think (hmmm...not
much chance of that!) that they would lend us some?

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:51:12 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1165732368.365142.27350@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> Richard wrote:
>>> Is heart hypertrophy associated with creatine?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> Also, suppose you have a low bf % and you can see good definition in your
>>> arms. If you started taking creatine for a slight increase in size, would
>>> your arms just get soft and look fat - would you lose the definition?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> My
>>> guess is that since the muscles become a lot softer, you would lose much
>>> of
>>> the definition.
>>
>> Bad guess.
>>
>>> Richard
>>
>> Yes, I agree, you are Richard.
>>
>
>As you can likely tell, David Cohen is one of the more prominent and
>ignerint character-disordered assaholics in this group.
>
>I'm neither pro nor con creatine--actually thinking of fooling around with
>it, but only in the 100-500 mg level, and for different reasons than most
d.
>
>Now, the wannabee scientists/professional jerkoffs in the this group
>(brinks, cohen, jmw et al) pooh-pooh anecdotal evidence the way an atheist
>dismisses religion, but anecdotal evidence can be very powerful--if it is

I don't think atheists dismiss religion. Religions obviously exist ...
many of them ... all better than the one before ... members of each
being the only group that are going to make it past the Pearly Gates
(in the old days anyway, and Christian religions primarily)

It's a God they dismiss.

<d wells> wrote in message
news:bqbpn257us0kj5vprl3cdn995suttdeuv2@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:51:12 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>
>>"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1165732368.365142.27350@n67g2000cwd.googleg roups.com...
>>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>> Is heart hypertrophy associated with creatine?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> Also, suppose you have a low bf % and you can see good definition in
>>>> your
>>>> arms. If you started taking creatine for a slight increase in size,
>>>> would
>>>> your arms just get soft and look fat - would you lose the definition?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> My
>>>> guess is that since the muscles become a lot softer, you would lose
>>>> much
>>>> of
>>>> the definition.
>>>
>>> Bad guess.
>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree, you are Richard.
>>>
>>
>>As you can likely tell, David Cohen is one of the more prominent and
>>ignerint character-disordered assaholics in this group.
>>
>>I'm neither pro nor con creatine--actually thinking of fooling around with
>>it, but only in the 100-500 mg level, and for different reasons than most
> d.
>>
>>Now, the wannabee scientists/professional jerkoffs in the this group
>>(brinks, cohen, jmw et al) pooh-pooh anecdotal evidence the way an atheist
>>dismisses religion, but anecdotal evidence can be very powerful--if it is
>
> I don't think atheists dismiss religion. Religions obviously exist ...
> many of them ... all better than the one before ... members of each
> being the only group that are going to make it past the Pearly Gates
> (in the old days anyway, and Christian religions primarily)
>
> It's a God they dismiss.

And they would be wrong.
I have proof that God exists:
My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>

Proctologically Violated wrote:
> d wells wrote: in message
>> Proctologically Violated wrote:
>>>Now, the wannabee scientists/professional jerkoffs in the this group
>>>(brinks, cohen, jmw et al) pooh-pooh anecdotal evidence the way an atheist
>>>dismisses religion, but anecdotal evidence can be very powerful
>>
>> I don't think atheists dismiss religion. Religions obviously exist ...
>> many of them ... all better than the one before ... members of each
>> being the only group that are going to make it past the Pearly Gates
>> (in the old days anyway, and Christian religions primarily)
>>
>> It's a God they dismiss.
>
> And they would be wrong.
> I have proof that God exists:
> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.

Absence of chance is not evidence of god. Not all atheists dismiss "a
God". I don't, because "a god" is a non-notion. Show me the beef - I
need to know exactly what that god is, how long do I get to spend in
the purgatory, etc. If that God is any plausible, I'll accept it
(him?). It's THE gods I dismiss, because none of them pass the muster.
A baby is born atheist, rather than agnostic, (agnostic is an educated
and scientific viewpoint). Some people remain atheists, and that is in
no way arrogant.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0612102024500.22811@urchin.eart h.li...
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006, Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>>
>>> And the fact that Watson stole the Nobel Prize (DNA) from Linus Pauling.
>>
>> Okay, first explain what this has to do with the createenies allegedly
>> ignoring evidence to the contrary,
>
> I'm so glad someone axed!!

I knew i'd regret this.

> First,

SNIP.

None of which has anything to do with DNA.

>> and then explain what the hell you mean by the statement anyway.
>
> I gather you disagree. By now, you should be familiar w/ my refrain,
> Remember Cold Fusion, and Watson the Thief. The point being that science
> is not some love of g-d learning/discovery shit. It's a bidniss, and a
> corrupt one. The question is, How corrupt?
>
> My own personal opinion is that science took a precipitous turn downward
> after 1953. The Nobel prize should not have even been awarded for DNA,
> because it was not a discovery, it was an Easter egghunt.

That pretty much describes most scientific discoveries.

> And Pauling was 10 minutes away from finding sed egg.

So he lost. Again, this is the normal situation for most scientific
discoveries. It is rather painful, but it's how we do things.

> If it was to be awarded, there are at least a dozen players who should
> have shared in it, including Pauling, for his preliminary elucidation of
> the structure, which was exactly correct, ceptin for the position of the
> phosphate backbone. In a few minutes, w/ Franklin's data, he would have
> corrected it.

But he didn't have Wilkins and Franklin's data!

> If you recall (iirc), Pauling had *already* deduced the structure of
> alpha-keratin, a *triple-helix* of protein. (!!!)

True. And Hanson and Huxley worked out the structure of the muscle
sarcomere, a much more complicated and interesting bit of work, at the
same time. Good work by all of them. But that doesn't mean anyone stole
anything from anyone else.

tom

--
VTEC Just Kicked in, Yo!!

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:14:41 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>
>
><d wells> wrote in message
>news:bqbpn257us0kj5vprl3cdn995suttdeuv2@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:51:12 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
>> <entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think atheists dismiss religion. Religions obviously exist ...
>> many of them ... all better than the one before ... members of each
>> being the only group that are going to make it past the Pearly Gates
>> (in the old days anyway, and Christian religions primarily)
>>
>> It's a God they dismiss.
>
>And they would be wrong.
>I have proof that God exists:
>My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.

I don't know. Each time I tweak my back I'm pretty sure He doesn't
exist (but not so sure I don't capitalize His name ... gotta show
respect, just in case).

Certainly a God would have worked out the bugs in man by the time Adam
hit the second public beta. And He's had all these years to release
some service packs. But, still, once in a while I'll do something
innocent ... like lean over to tie my shoe ... and I'll tweak my back.

And my knee. If I kneel down and move sideways it hurts like nothing
else when I stand back up. To the point I'll squeal out loud.

I guess there's always a chance that Marketing rushed Adam out the
door. But that sounds like we have something more like A Committee
than A God.

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

> I have proof that God exists:
> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.

Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and revealing.

You lead a miserable life, and you try to make others miserable by
being a Boring Douchebag Troll.

This tiny bit of self awareness may be your key to recovery. Go see a
good psychiatrist. There may be help for you.

David

David Cohen wrote:
> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
>> I have proof that God exists:
>> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
>
> Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and revealing.

I thought he was posting the lyrics to his favourite Smiths song?

>
> You lead a miserable life, and you try to make others miserable by
> being a Boring Douchebag Troll.
>
> This tiny bit of self awareness may be your key to recovery. Go see a
> good psychiatrist. There may be help for you.
>
> David



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

On Dec 10, 1:29 pm, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14de...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
> Yet, here is a collection of, I think, *hundreds* of feedbacks on creatine,
> guestimating about 75% negative, and about 1/3 of those seriously so.
> And almost everyone I've personally talked to had complaints, and eventually
> stopped using it.


Thats because the nimrods 'using' creatine equate it to having a
steroid effect, and when it doesnt materialize beyond thier wildest
dreams, they think it doesnt 'work' for them when in reality they didnt
know what it was supposed to do for them in the first place.



joanne

Bully wrote:
> David Cohen wrote:
> > Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> >
> >> I have proof that God exists:
> >> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
> >
> > Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and revealing.
>
> I thought he was posting the lyrics to his favourite Smiths song?

One can find self awareness in music, in art, in film, in literature.

Let the psychiatrist sort it out.

David

joanne wrote:
> On Dec 10, 1:29 pm, "Proctologically Violated©®"
> <entropic3.14de...@optonline2.718.net> wrote:
>> Yet, here is a collection of, I think, *hundreds* of feedbacks on
>> creatine, guestimating about 75% negative, and about 1/3 of those
>> seriously so.
>> And almost everyone I've personally talked to had complaints, and
>> eventually stopped using it.
>
>
> Thats because the nimrods 'using' creatine equate it to having a
> steroid effect, and when it doesnt materialize beyond thier wildest
> dreams, they think it doesnt 'work' for them when in reality they
> didnt know what it was supposed to do for them in the first place.
>
>
>
> joanne

Almost everyone I've personally talked to had zero complaints, and continue
to use it.

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

David Cohen wrote:
> Bully wrote:
>> David Cohen wrote:
>>> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have proof that God exists:
>>>> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
>>>
>>> Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and
>>> revealing.
>>
>> I thought he was posting the lyrics to his favourite Smiths song?
>
> One can find self awareness in music, in art, in film, in literature.
>
> Let the psychiatrist sort it out.
>
> David

Good luck to him.

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

On 12 Dec 2006 21:14:08 -0800, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>
>> I have proof that God exists:
>> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
>
>Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and revealing.
>
>You lead a miserable life, and you try to make others miserable by
>being a Boring Douchebag Troll.
>
>This tiny bit of self awareness may be your key to recovery. Go see a
>good psychiatrist. There may be help for you.
>

As usual, Cohen's rarely offered advice is pithy and to the point.

It is my observation, merely as a corollary to his helpful and
well-intentioned advice, that his post could become the standard for
such situations.

Would it not be a good idea to use Cohen's three succinct paragraphs
above, as a pro forma for all future suggestions to recalcitrant
contributors who exhibit delusions of grandeur or eccentricity.

With just a change of name in the header, the pro forma could be used
to deal with:

1. Those who don't like dogs.
2. Anti-gun commie bastards.
3. Those who disagree with John Williams.
4. People who use the word toning.
5. Eager, brash, newcomers to the Group who want to take over.
6. Members who criticise our regular misc. contributors.
7. Posters who post nothing but intense so-called on-topic rubbish.
8. Those who write reams of pseudo scientific & medical bullshit.
9. Feminists and members of the dreaded PC Brigade.
10. All *alleged* "killfilers".
11. All short men with big tits who are stroppy little pricks.
12. All English nationals who know everything about everything.

The list has endless possibilities and will save much time and effort
thinking up ways to give the shits to people with whom you disagree.

It could be called 'Cohen's Paradox' and see his name go down in the
glorious annals of MFW history, as both innovator and man of the
people.

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>>> Yet, here is a collection of, I think, *hundreds* of feedbacks on
>>> creatine, guestimating about 75% negative, and about 1/3 of those
>>> seriously so.
>>> And almost everyone I've personally talked to had complaints, and
>>> eventually stopped using it.

>> Thats because the nimrods 'using' creatine equate it to having a
>> steroid effect...

Whats a steroid effect?

>> and when it doesnt materialize beyond thier wildest
>> dreams, they think it doesnt 'work' for them when in reality they
>> didnt know what it was supposed to do for them in the first place.

What is creatine supposed to do in the first place?

> Almost everyone I've personally talked to had zero complaints, and
> continue to use it.

----
Pete

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>>> Yet, here is a collection of, I think, *hundreds* of feedbacks on
>>>> creatine, guestimating about 75% negative, and about 1/3 of those
>>>> seriously so.
>>>> And almost everyone I've personally talked to had complaints, and
>>>> eventually stopped using it.
>
>>> Thats because the nimrods 'using' creatine equate it to having a
>>> steroid effect...
>
> Whats a steroid effect?
>
>>> and when it doesnt materialize beyond thier wildest
>>> dreams, they think it doesnt 'work' for them when in reality they
>>> didnt know what it was supposed to do for them in the first place.
>
> What is creatine supposed to do in the first place?
>
>> Almost everyone I've personally talked to had zero complaints, and
>> continue to use it.
>
> ----
> Pete

Hey you, lay off the chicks!

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:

>>>> Thats because the nimrods 'using' creatine equate it to having a
>>>> steroid effect...

>> Whats a steroid effect?

>>>> and when it doesnt materialize beyond thier wildest
>>>> dreams, they think it doesnt 'work' for them when in reality they
>>>> didnt know what it was supposed to do for them in the first place.

>> What is creatine supposed to do in the first place?

>>> Almost everyone I've personally talked to had zero complaints, and
>>> continue to use it.

> Hey you, lay off the chicks!

They love me for my warm and charming personality.

----
Pete

"Charles" <jrh@msn.com> wrote in message
news:h8evn21tn05lbm7sa8cdjdh7lt49rj81vi@4ax.com...
> On 12 Dec 2006 21:14:08 -0800, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>>
>>> I have proof that God exists:
>>> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
>>
>>Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and revealing.
>>
>>You lead a miserable life, and you try to make others miserable by
>>being a Boring Douchebag Troll.
>>
>>This tiny bit of self awareness may be your key to recovery. Go see a
>>good psychiatrist. There may be help for you.
>>
>
> As usual, Cohen's rarely offered advice is pithy and to the point.
>
> It is my observation, merely as a corollary to his helpful and
> well-intentioned advice, that his post could become the standard for
> such situations.
>
> Would it not be a good idea to use Cohen's three succinct paragraphs
> above, as a pro forma for all future suggestions to recalcitrant
> contributors who exhibit delusions of grandeur or eccentricity.
>
> With just a change of name in the header, the pro forma could be used
> to deal with:
>
> 1. Those who don't like dogs.
> 2. Anti-gun commie bastards.
> 3. Those who disagree with John Williams.
> 4. People who use the word toning.
> 5. Eager, brash, newcomers to the Group who want to take over.
> 6. Members who criticise our regular misc. contributors.
> 7. Posters who post nothing but intense so-called on-topic rubbish.
> 8. Those who write reams of pseudo scientific & medical bullshit.
> 9. Feminists and members of the dreaded PC Brigade.
> 10. All *alleged* "killfilers".
> 11. All short men with big tits who are stroppy little pricks.
> 12. All English nationals who know everything about everything.
>
> The list has endless possibilities and will save much time and effort
> thinking up ways to give the shits to people with whom you disagree.
>
> It could be called 'Cohen's Paradox' and see his name go down in the
> glorious annals of MFW history, as both innovator and man of the
> people.

Didn't you mean "anals"?

Is it true what I've heard? Cohen does have a nice ass, and all the male
docs pinch it?
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs



>
>
>
>

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
> "Charles" <jrh@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:h8evn21tn05lbm7sa8cdjdh7lt49rj81vi@4ax.com...
>> On 12 Dec 2006 21:14:08 -0800, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have proof that God exists:
>>>> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
>>>
>>> Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and
>>> revealing. You lead a miserable life, and you try to make others
>>> miserable by
>>> being a Boring Douchebag Troll.
>>>
>>> This tiny bit of self awareness may be your key to recovery. Go see
>>> a good psychiatrist. There may be help for you.
>>>
>>
>> As usual, Cohen's rarely offered advice is pithy and to the point.
>>
>> It is my observation, merely as a corollary to his helpful and
>> well-intentioned advice, that his post could become the standard for
>> such situations.
>>
>> Would it not be a good idea to use Cohen's three succinct paragraphs
>> above, as a pro forma for all future suggestions to recalcitrant
>> contributors who exhibit delusions of grandeur or eccentricity.
>>
>> With just a change of name in the header, the pro forma could be used
>> to deal with:
>>
>> 1. Those who don't like dogs.
>> 2. Anti-gun commie bastards.
>> 3. Those who disagree with John Williams.
>> 4. People who use the word toning.
>> 5. Eager, brash, newcomers to the Group who want to take over.
>> 6. Members who criticise our regular misc. contributors.
>> 7. Posters who post nothing but intense so-called on-topic rubbish.
>> 8. Those who write reams of pseudo scientific & medical bullshit.
>> 9. Feminists and members of the dreaded PC Brigade.
>> 10. All *alleged* "killfilers".
>> 11. All short men with big tits who are stroppy little pricks.
>> 12. All English nationals who know everything about everything.
>>
>> The list has endless possibilities and will save much time and effort
>> thinking up ways to give the shits to people with whom you disagree.
>>
>> It could be called 'Cohen's Paradox' and see his name go down in the
>> glorious annals of MFW history, as both innovator and man of the
>> people.
>
> Didn't you mean "anals"?

You won't find John Hudson using the word ANAL. It brings back too many
hideous schoolday memories for him.


--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 06:51:24 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>> "Charles" <jrh@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8evn21tn05lbm7sa8cdjdh7lt49rj81vi@4ax.com...
>>> On 12 Dec 2006 21:14:08 -0800, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have proof that God exists:
>>>>> My life could not be this miserable by chance alone.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, Boring Douchebag Troll posts something useful, and
>>>> revealing. You lead a miserable life, and you try to make others
>>>> miserable by
>>>> being a Boring Douchebag Troll.
>>>>
>>>> This tiny bit of self awareness may be your key to recovery. Go see
>>>> a good psychiatrist. There may be help for you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As usual, Cohen's rarely offered advice is pithy and to the point.
>>>
>>> It is my observation, merely as a corollary to his helpful and
>>> well-intentioned advice, that his post could become the standard for
>>> such situations.
>>>
>>> Would it not be a good idea to use Cohen's three succinct paragraphs
>>> above, as a pro forma for all future suggestions to recalcitrant
>>> contributors who exhibit delusions of grandeur or eccentricity.
>>>
>>> With just a change of name in the header, the pro forma could be used
>>> to deal with:
>>>
>>> 1. Those who don't like dogs.
>>> 2. Anti-gun commie bastards.
>>> 3. Those who disagree with John Williams.
>>> 4. People who use the word toning.
>>> 5. Eager, brash, newcomers to the Group who want to take over.
>>> 6. Members who criticise our regular misc. contributors.
>>> 7. Posters who post nothing but intense so-called on-topic rubbish.
>>> 8. Those who write reams of pseudo scientific & medical bullshit.
>>> 9. Feminists and members of the dreaded PC Brigade.
>>> 10. All *alleged* "killfilers".
>>> 11. All short men with big tits who are stroppy little pricks.
>>> 12. All English nationals who know everything about everything.
>>>
>>> The list has endless possibilities and will save much time and effort
>>> thinking up ways to give the shits to people with whom you disagree.
>>>
>>> It could be called 'Cohen's Paradox' and see his name go down in the
>>> glorious annals of MFW history, as both innovator and man of the
>>> people.
>>
>> Didn't you mean "anals"?
>
>You won't find John Hudson using the word ANAL. It brings back too many
>hideous schoolday memories for him.

Further proof, if proof were needed, that Neil Simpson is an idiotic
childish wretch having to rely on cheap playground taunts about
homosexuality (not that there is anything wrong with it), to attempt
to score a cheap point against his Nemesis.

Add to this that he has *allegedly* "killfiled" his Nemesis and you
will perhaps also note what a hypocritical fat prick he is.

However, I said I will always respond to his unprovoked and gratuitous
rudeness in kind, so:

I have it on good authority (it was written on the shithouse wall at
Charing Cross station) that Neil Simpson takes it up the bum and gives
blow jobs to released prisoners at bail hostels.

Have a good weekend you fat little knob jockey - you know I intend to!
;o)

TFIF!

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:51:12 -0500, "Proctologically Violated©®"
<entropic3.14decay@optonline2.718.net> wrote:

>As you can likely tell, David Cohen is one of the more prominent and
>ignerint (sic) character-disordered assaholics in this group.

Word.