Gun books recommendations

David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:

"The Gun Digest Book Of Combat Handgunnery, 5th Edition"

After reading several others that I ordered, this one is the current
read.

Best book yet, thanks! :-)

Extremely educational for a neophyte, and very up to date.

I'm about 2/3 of the way thru it right now. Looks like my issue with
double taps was a bad grip.

Next range session should be interesting.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Omelet wrote:
> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:

What does this have to do with fitness?

"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> Omelet wrote:
>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>
> What does this have to do with fitness?

Oh dear.

In article <45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
> > David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>
> What does this have to do with fitness?

Try an IDPA match sometime....... ;-)

This particular book can help you train for them.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> > Omelet wrote:
> >> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
> >
> > What does this have to do with fitness?
>
> Oh dear.

Chill dude.

This is mfw.

<smirk>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>
> "The Gun Digest Book Of Combat Handgunnery, 5th Edition"
>
> After reading several others that I ordered, this one is the current
> read.
>
> Best book yet, thanks! :-)

Read Massad Ayoob's other books.

"In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" is
the most important.

"StressFire, Volume I of Gunfighting for Police"

"StressFire II: Advanced Combat Shotgun, Volume II of Gunfighting for
Police"

As much as I respect the late Colonel Jeff Cooper and his contribution to
modern handgunning, I can NOT recommend any of his instructional writings or
those of his "followers", for us civilians who practice a little and almost
never have to fire a gun in defense. His techniques are best reserved for
highly trained, highly practiced, Special Operations forces types. Not us.
>
> I'm about 2/3 of the way thru it right now. Looks like my issue with
> double taps was a bad grip.

Wuss

David

In article <Cc9rh.11994$yx6.5782@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink .net>,
"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote
> > David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
> >
> > "The Gun Digest Book Of Combat Handgunnery, 5th Edition"
> >
> > After reading several others that I ordered, this one is the current
> > read.
> >
> > Best book yet, thanks! :-)
>
> Read Massad Ayoob's other books.
>
> "In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection" is
> the most important.

Already read. It was the first.

>
> "StressFire, Volume I of Gunfighting for Police"
>
> "StressFire II: Advanced Combat Shotgun, Volume II of Gunfighting for
> Police"

On the shopping list.

Another favorite by him that I've read is "The Truth about Self
Protection". One I highly recommend. It's very complete.

"Ayoob Files, The book" was also very interesting.

He and Suarez are currently two of my favorite authors, altho' the two
following books were also excellent:

"Surgical Speed Shooting: How To Achieve High-Speed Marksmanship In A
Gunfight", by Andy Stanford

and

"Understanding Firearm Ballistics" by Robert A. Rinker

So many books, so little time. :-)

I just wanted to thank you for that specific recommend as it has been
very helpful in learning about handguns in general.

I especially enjoyed the chapter on design history. It's made me want to
explore that one further, along with handgun anatomy.

>
> As much as I respect the late Colonel Jeff Cooper and his contribution to
> modern handgunning, I can NOT recommend any of his instructional writings or
> those of his "followers", for us civilians who practice a little and almost
> never have to fire a gun in defense. His techniques are best reserved for
> highly trained, highly practiced, Special Operations forces types. Not us.

I have to agree. He's not flexible enough for one thing.
And I don't mean physically.

> >
> > I'm about 2/3 of the way thru it right now. Looks like my issue with
> > double taps was a bad grip.
>
> Wuss

Hey at least I'm learning from my mistakes! ;-)
I was not holding the gun right.

I have no coach........ except myself.

>
> David

Cheers sir!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:

> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>
>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>
>> Oh dear.
>
> Chill dude.
>
> This is mfw.

To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.

tom

--
MADSKILLZ!

Tom Anderson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>
>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>
>>> Oh dear.
>>
>> Chill dude.

I'm just getting so tired of all the noise in this group and
no one complains, so it continues.

Since the post lacked any text having anything to do
with fitness, it either doesn't belong or it should have
included something relevant. As is, it belonged more in
misc.oprah.bookclub. :-)

That's fine.. I'll just PLONK the author and topic and move on.

>>
>> This is mfw.
>
> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.

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.

"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
news:45ad3a2a$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>> Chill dude.
>
> I'm just getting so tired of all the noise in this group and
> no one complains, so it continues.
>
> Since the post lacked any text having anything to do
> with fitness, it either doesn't belong or it should have
> included something relevant. As is, it belonged more in
> misc.oprah.bookclub. :-)
>
> That's fine.. I'll just PLONK the author and topic and move on.
>
>>>
>>> This is mfw.
>>
>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>
> 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.

To quote PV (in response to someone who was complaining about, iirc, the odd
bit of porn here and there at mfw), something is telling me you're not going
to be very happy here.

ep
(Or maybe you are *looking* for a fight. Enjoy, if so.)

In article <Gcbrh.3085$bp4.1886@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45ad3a2a$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> > Tom Anderson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> >>>>> Omelet wrote:
> >>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh dear.
> >>>
> >>> Chill dude.
> >
> > I'm just getting so tired of all the noise in this group and
> > no one complains, so it continues.
> >
> > Since the post lacked any text having anything to do
> > with fitness, it either doesn't belong or it should have
> > included something relevant. As is, it belonged more in
> > misc.oprah.bookclub. :-)
> >
> > That's fine.. I'll just PLONK the author and topic and move on.
> >
> >>>
> >>> This is mfw.
> >>
> >> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
> >> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
> >
> > 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.
>
> To quote PV (in response to someone who was complaining about, iirc, the odd
> bit of porn here and there at mfw), something is telling me you're not going
> to be very happy here.
>
> ep
> (Or maybe you are *looking* for a fight. Enjoy, if so.)

There is that... <lol>
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In article <45ad3a2a$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net>,
"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
> >
> >> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
> >> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> >>>> Omelet wrote:
> >>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
> >>>>
> >>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
> >>>
> >>> Oh dear.
> >>
> >> Chill dude.
>
> I'm just getting so tired of all the noise in this group and
> no one complains, so it continues.

And even if you complain, it will still continue...

See, competitive shooting is not off topic.
It's more athletic than you might want to think.

Specific books can help with skills.

>
> Since the post lacked any text having anything to do
> with fitness, it either doesn't belong or it should have
> included something relevant. As is, it belonged more in
> misc.oprah.bookclub. :-)

Wrong sir.
Marksmanship is actually an Olympic competition. So is weightlifting.

Bodybuilding isn't and probably never will be.

>
> That's fine.. I'll just PLONK the author and topic and move on.

That's ok. Funny, but I actually used to care about getting plonked.
<shrugs>

Now I consider it to be the Plonkers loss. Cheers!

>
> >>
> >> This is mfw.
> >
> > To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
> > miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>
> 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.

And you don't think that weight lifting and arm/hand strength can
contribute to shooting skills?

Ok.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

Edna Pearl wrote:
> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45ad3a2a$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
[...]
>> 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.
>
> To quote PV (in response to someone who was complaining about, iirc, the odd
> bit of porn here and there at mfw), something is telling me you're not going
> to be very happy here.

The odd bit of garbage is expected and happens in every newsgroup,
it's the continued off-topic posts by certain people, and the continued
rants on those topics that are bothersome. Possibly they just don't
know how where to post certain topics.

It's no problem, I'll just PLONK, as needed. Happy as a clam.

> ep
> (Or maybe you are *looking* for a fight. Enjoy, if so.)

Nah.. Simply asking the person why they thought their post had
anything to do with this newsgroup, is simply a reminder. If they
continue, they're filtered out. It doesn't hurt to remind them or
educate someone to help their post stay more on topic. If more
people did complain and PLONK the authors, they'd hopefully move
on.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:32:05 -0600, "J. Gleixner"
<glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:

>Edna Pearl wrote:
>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:45ad3a2a$0$10298$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>[...]
>>> 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.
>>
>> To quote PV (in response to someone who was complaining about, iirc, the odd
>> bit of porn here and there at mfw), something is telling me you're not going
>> to be very happy here.
>
>The odd bit of garbage is expected and happens in every newsgroup,
>it's the continued off-topic posts by certain people, and the continued
>rants on those topics that are bothersome. Possibly they just don't
>know how where to post certain topics.

I seriously doubt that.

>It's no problem, I'll just PLONK, as needed. Happy as a clam.

Until there is no one left.

>> ep
>> (Or maybe you are *looking* for a fight. Enjoy, if so.)
>
>Nah.. Simply asking the person why they thought their post had
>anything to do with this newsgroup, is simply a reminder. If they
>continue, they're filtered out. It doesn't hurt to remind them or
>educate someone to help their post stay more on topic. If more
>people did complain and PLONK the authors, they'd hopefully move
>on.

There is plenty of complaining going on already. Few move on.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, J. Gleixner wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>> Chill dude.
>>>
>>> This is mfw.
>>
>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>
> 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.

Sadly, your analysis, whilst logical and compelling, is wrong - you are
taking an essentially prescriptivist line, assuming that the nature of the
newsgroup should follow its name, and that any deviation from this, such
as you have so astutely observed here, is evil and bad and, dare i say it,
wrong. The simple truth is that names are not special; they have no
magical power or moral authority, no imprimatur to give, they are simply
labels applied to objects. The nature of the object does not follow from
the name, any more than the nature of a person or street does. That the
object in question here, a newsgroup frequented by a stew of strange and
unsavoury characters and used for discussion of guns, dogs, unsettling
pornography, one another's acts and qualities, weightlifting, politics,
films, recipes, comics and other nonsense, goes by a somewhat
inappropriate name is perhaps unhelpful, but, as you will learn once
you've used the internet for more than four or five minutes, really quite
normal and nothing to worry about.

tom

--
Understanding the universe is the final purpose, as far as I'm
concerned. -- Ian York

"Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, J. Gleixner wrote:
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>
>>>> Chill dude.
>>>>
>>>> This is mfw.
>>>
>>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Sadly, your analysis, whilst logical and compelling, is wrong - you are
> taking an essentially prescriptivist line, assuming that the nature of the
> newsgroup should follow its name, and that any deviation from this, such
> as you have so astutely observed here, is evil and bad and, dare i say it,
> wrong. The simple truth is that names are not special; they have no
> magical power or moral authority, no imprimatur to give, they are simply
> labels applied to objects. The nature of the object does not follow from
> the name, any more than the nature of a person or street does. That the
> object in question here, a newsgroup frequented by a stew of strange and
> unsavoury characters and used for discussion of guns, dogs, unsettling
> pornography, one another's acts and qualities, weightlifting, politics,
> films, recipes, comics and other nonsense, goes by a somewhat
> inappropriate name is perhaps unhelpful, but, as you will learn once
> you've used the internet for more than four or five minutes, really quite
> normal and nothing to worry about.

Tom, if we change the name of the group to
soc.rec.whineydouchebagsarenotwelcome, maybe he'll go away.

David

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ederh.11815$w91.2889@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
>
> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, J. Gleixner wrote:
>>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chill dude.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is mfw.
>>>>
>>>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>>>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Sadly, your analysis, whilst logical and compelling, is wrong - you are
>> taking an essentially prescriptivist line, assuming that the nature of
>> the newsgroup should follow its name, and that any deviation from this,
>> such as you have so astutely observed here, is evil and bad and, dare i
>> say it, wrong. The simple truth is that names are not special; they have
>> no magical power or moral authority, no imprimatur to give, they are
>> simply labels applied to objects. The nature of the object does not
>> follow from the name, any more than the nature of a person or street
>> does. That the object in question here, a newsgroup frequented by a stew
>> of strange and unsavoury characters and used for discussion of guns,
>> dogs, unsettling pornography, one another's acts and qualities,
>> weightlifting, politics, films, recipes, comics and other nonsense, goes
>> by a somewhat inappropriate name is perhaps unhelpful, but, as you will
>> learn once you've used the internet for more than four or five minutes,
>> really quite normal and nothing to worry about.
>
> Tom, if we change the name of the group to
> soc.rec.whineydouchebagsarenotwelcome, maybe he'll go away.

Or perhaps
alt.guns+dogs+unsettlingpornography+weightlifting+ politics+films+recipes+comics?

ep

> David
>

"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:
>Tom Anderson wrote:
>> Omelet wrote:
>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>> Chill dude.
>
>I'm just getting so tired of all the noise in this group and
>no one complains, so it continues.
>
>Since the post lacked any text having anything to do
>with fitness, it either doesn't belong or it should have
>included something relevant. As is, it belonged more in
>misc.oprah.bookclub. :-)
>
>That's fine.. I'll just PLONK the author and topic and move on.
>
>>>
>>> This is mfw.
>>
>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>
>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.

A little advice for your learning experience in THIS newsgroup:

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

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.

HTH

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote
> "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote >>
>> "Tom Anderson" <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, J. Gleixner wrote:
>>>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chill dude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is mfw.
>>>>>
>>>>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>>>>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Sadly, your analysis, whilst logical and compelling, is wrong - you are
>>> taking an essentially prescriptivist line, assuming that the nature of
>>> the newsgroup should follow its name, and that any deviation from this,
>>> such as you have so astutely observed here, is evil and bad and, dare i
>>> say it, wrong. The simple truth is that names are not special; they have
>>> no magical power or moral authority, no imprimatur to give, they are
>>> simply labels applied to objects. The nature of the object does not
>>> follow from the name, any more than the nature of a person or street
>>> does. That the object in question here, a newsgroup frequented by a stew
>>> of strange and unsavoury characters and used for discussion of guns,
>>> dogs, unsettling pornography, one another's acts and qualities,
>>> weightlifting, politics, films, recipes, comics and other nonsense, goes
>>> by a somewhat inappropriate name is perhaps unhelpful, but, as you will
>>> learn once you've used the internet for more than four or five minutes,
>>> really quite normal and nothing to worry about.
>>
>> Tom, if we change the name of the group to
>> soc.rec.whineydouchebagsarenotwelcome, maybe he'll go away.
>
> Or perhaps
> alt.guns+dogs+unsettlingpornography+weightlifting+ politics+films+recipes+comics?

Too restrictive, I think. I may decide to discuss cosmology. Or knives. Or
the superiority of country singing women.

Excluding whiney douchebags is easier.

David

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:25:17 GMT, "David Cohen"
<sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Too restrictive, I think. I may decide to discuss cosmology. Or knives. Or
>the superiority of country singing women.
>
>Excluding whiney douchebags is easier.
>
>David

Hmm, do I see a trend here. All those are women's things except for
the knives. 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.

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:27:57 +0000, Tom Anderson
<twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, 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 certainly makes sense to me.
Unfortunately the whole concept of Usenet is chaotic and doesn't fit
in any world which makes sense. There are a few hierarchy groups
which are still modified. The rest exist in total anarchy where
anything goes.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 19:55:39 -0500, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:
>>Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>
>>>> Chill dude.
>>
>>I'm just getting so tired of all the noise in this group and
>>no one complains, so it continues.
>>
>>Since the post lacked any text having anything to do
>>with fitness, it either doesn't belong or it should have
>>included something relevant. As is, it belonged more in
>>misc.oprah.bookclub. :-)
>>
>>That's fine.. I'll just PLONK the author and topic and move on.
>>
>>>>
>>>> This is mfw.
>>>
>>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>>
>>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.
>
>A little advice for your learning experience in THIS newsgroup:
>
>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. I'm not trying to
>draw a correlation; that's just how it is. 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.
>
>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.
>
>HTH

Please stop. I am laughing too hard. Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha !!!!!!

In article <s0drq295s1se0p0qcsju8nhb9uk5e0isp8@4ax.com>,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

> There are a few hierarchy groups
> which are still modified.

You misspelled "moderated".

> The rest exist in total anarchy where
> anything goes.

Where?

I don't know of any groups like that!
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

In news:s0drq295s1se0p0qcsju8nhb9uk5e0isp8@4ax.com,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> typed:
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:27:57 +0000, Tom Anderson
> <twic@urchin.earth.li> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, 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 certainly makes sense to me.
> Unfortunately the whole concept of Usenet is chaotic and doesn't fit
> in any world which makes sense. There are a few hierarchy groups
> which are still modified. The rest exist in total anarchy where
> anything goes.

Shute, you obviously have a very blinkered or sanitised view of the world at
large.

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

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

"J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam@qwest-spam-no.invalid> schreef:

>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:

> What does this have to do with fitness?

Its a good static hold for the front/medial dets. The bigger the gun, the
bigger the bullet and the longer the barrel, the better.

--
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

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:

> Wrong sir.
> Marksmanship is actually an Olympic competition. So is weightlifting.

> Bodybuilding isn't and probably never will be.

Excuse me?

EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!

Shooting Grizzlys is NOT going to be an Olympic event?

>> 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.

> And you don't think that weight lifting and arm/hand strength can
> contribute to shooting skills?

I actually did extra fore-arm work when i ordered my gun. I really did.
And it helped. I have more control and a LOT less recoil than most people.

--
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

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> schreef:

>> Or perhaps
>> alt.guns+dogs+unsettlingpornography+weightlifting+ politics+films+recipes+comics?

> Too restrictive, I think. I may decide to discuss cosmology. Or knives.
> Or the superiority of country singing women.

What about;

misc.realmenlovebiggunssincethesmalleronesareforsi ssysandfatblackassesandareabitpsychoticandlivebelo wsealevel.weights.

Never mind.

I post here anyway.

--
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

"Shute" <Shute@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, 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

In article <45adff7e$0$59854$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete \(New & Improved, Version 4.08a\)" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> > Wrong sir.
> > Marksmanship is actually an Olympic competition. So is weightlifting.
>
> > Bodybuilding isn't and probably never will be.
>
> Excuse me?
>
> EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!
>
> Shooting Grizzlys is NOT going to be an Olympic event?
>
> >> 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.
>
> > And you don't think that weight lifting and arm/hand strength can
> > contribute to shooting skills?
>
> I actually did extra fore-arm work when i ordered my gun. I really did.
> And it helped. I have more control and a LOT less recoil than most people.
>
> --
> Pete, The New & Improved Version

It's why (I suspect) Cohen called me a wuss over my double tap comment.
;-)

Extra forearm work is in the plans...... but so is gripping it correctly.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson

"Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:

>> I actually did extra fore-arm work when i ordered my gun. I really did.
>> And it helped. I have more control and a LOT less recoil than most
>> people.

> It's why (I suspect) Cohen called me a wuss over my double tap comment.
> ;-)

> Extra forearm work is in the plans...... but so is gripping it correctly.

True. But dont forget grip shape/size and material.

My Taurus is almost perfect for me.

I just hold it gently, i barely squeeze it. Most people do and they tremble.
Another thing most people do, because they fear the recoil i asssume, is
"pressing" the gun down when the trigger is pulled.

Which results in missing the target, and the barrel flips up anyway.

Weird thing is, that many experienced shooters here told me the extra mass
in my lower/upperarms and shoulders, and the overall body mass wasnt going
to help.

They were dead wrong.

There are only 2 men in the club with a .454. Me and a huge American guy,
who weighs around 320 punds.
We both shoot single handed, without problems. The gun flips quite a bit,
but nowhere near as bad when a skinny guy tries it. I am quite sure of this.

They usually walk away after one shot. Which amuses me quite a bit ;-O

--
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

In article <45ae0c50$0$72583$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>,
"Pete \(New & Improved, Version 4.08a\)" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Omelet" <omp_omelet@gmail.com> schreef:
>
> >> I actually did extra fore-arm work when i ordered my gun. I really did.
> >> And it helped. I have more control and a LOT less recoil than most
> >> people.
>
> > It's why (I suspect) Cohen called me a wuss over my double tap comment.
> > ;-)
>
> > Extra forearm work is in the plans...... but so is gripping it correctly.
>
> True. But dont forget grip shape/size and material.

Yes. Some modifications are a consideration but I don't think it'll be
necessary. I believe my hands are of average size.

>
> My Taurus is almost perfect for me.
>
> I just hold it gently, i barely squeeze it. Most people do and they tremble.
> Another thing most people do, because they fear the recoil i asssume, is
> "pressing" the gun down when the trigger is pulled.

A tight grip is actually recommended for competitive shooting.
Seems to help reduce muzzle flip.

>
> Which results in missing the target, and the barrel flips up anyway.

I don't seem to have that problem. ;-)
I'm not 100% bullseyes, but I have posted my targets. I have a tendency
to pull to the right (and a hair low) but now that I know what to do to
correct that, it should get better.

Now I just have to make a habit out of it.

>
> Weird thing is, that many experienced shooters here told me the extra mass
> in my lower/upperarms and shoulders, and the overall body mass wasnt going
> to help.
>
> They were dead wrong.

Indeed.
Added hand strength is never a handicap imho?

>
> There are only 2 men in the club with a .454. Me and a huge American guy,
> who weighs around 320 punds.
> We both shoot single handed, without problems. The gun flips quite a bit,
> but nowhere near as bad when a skinny guy tries it. I am quite sure of this.

Shooting one handed does produce more muzzle flip (it's inevitable) but
as long as you can bring it quickly back on target, it's not a big deal.

I hope you also practice weak handed?
IDPA competitions demand that.

>
> They usually walk away after one shot. Which amuses me quite a bit ;-O

Heh! I do at least a full magazine (or cylinder).
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson