HST simplified...please

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:36:40 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>Jason Earl <jearl@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> writes:
>>
>>> "geek_girl" <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If you truly understood the principles
>>>>rather than just being able to parrot
>>>>them, the calculator would make
>>>>perfect sense to you.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that MFW has recently become filled with "advisors"
>>> who Google and parrot but have no real understanding of the
>>> underlying subject matter.
>>
>>Hey! I at least warn people that I probably don't know that the heck
>>I am talking about.
>
>I really don't see you doing that. I've read enough of your stuff to
>know that you are interested in learning and can actually discuss the
>subject matter. There's a difference.
>
>Not long ago, someone (Will Brink maybe?) posted a link to a study
>that established something which is actually rather intuitive: the
>truly clueless don't even know that they're clueless. I'm starting to
>see a lot of that.

There is many a precedent for this kind of behaviour, but a simple
example from fiction will explain it better than drawing attention to
any of your obvious symptoms of mental illness.

You may see parallels with your own life in HCA's story about the
King's new suit!

HTH!

Have a great Sunday John - I intend to, and yes, I'm going to be
"drinking" again, shocking though that may be to you as a
self-confessed alcoholic and drug addict.

(I just thought you ought to know that!)

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:33:58 -0400, Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:36:40 -0400, JMW
><jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>
>>Not long ago, someone (Will Brink maybe?) posted a link to a study
>>that established something which is actually rather intuitive: the
>>truly clueless don't even know that they're clueless. I'm starting to
>>see a lot of that.
>
>You are one of the most twisted people I have ever met on Usenet. You
>spend time playing with Curt's nipples in Photoshop. Then post the
>images up on your website so you can show everyone what you do in your
>spare time. And we are the clueless ones?

You appear to have got the measure of the man Shute; it's double
standards with him all the time, whereby he is the worst kind of
practitioner of all those faults and practices he complains about in
other people.

He is a complete and utter self-promoting fraud and a very unpleasant
person to boot - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
deserved.

Have a great Sunday Shute - I always do! ;o)

Charles wrote:
> - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
> deserved.

I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know I'd
beat you senseless.

On 22 Oct 2006 01:37:06 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Charles wrote:
>
>>You appear to have got the measure of the man Shute; it's double
>>standards with him all the time, whereby he is the worst kind of
>>practitioner of all those faults and practices he complains about in
>>other people.
>
>>He is a complete and utter self-promoting fraud and a very unpleasant
>>person to boot - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
>>deserved.

I have a facility to re-insert the selective <snipping> you have
copied from the Hankyman, so it won't profit you at all to continue
adopting his pathetic and wayward habits!

>
>I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know I'd
>beat you senseless.

You really are scraping the barrel now John Williams, offering on-line
violence as a way of extricating yourself from the endless holes you
dig yourself.

While I have no intention of responding your blustering would-be bully
boy threats of physical violence, you would be foolish in the extreme
to even begin to believe that my apparent effete cybernet persona,
indicates that a tub of lard like you would be able to intimidate or
subdue me in any way. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
for a living! ;o)

The "boot up the arse" expression is a rugby club jibe and was merely
meant to convey, that if you came to an English rugby club and behaved
the way you do here, you would be very quickly reappraised and hacked
down to size collectively - or figuratively, given a good boot up the
arse.

It was in no way a threat of physical threat of violence from me to
you, unlike your very confrontational response - which was utterly
banal and meaningless. And certainly not the conduct of an officer of
the court. Such unprofessional behaviour would result in someone in
the law in the UK getting struck off!

I thought you had decided to forgo the pleasure of responding to me
direct? It's quite uncanny how I manage to draw you out John Williams,
despite all your resolve not to fall into the trap! ;o)

I just thought you ought to know that you silly old man. For goodness
sake grown up and act your age.

How about 'little fingers' Johnny dear? <VBG>

HAGS!

Charles wrote:
>
> you would be foolish in the extreme
> to even begin to believe that my apparent effete cybernet persona,

You misspelled "effeminate."

HTH

> You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
> for a living! ;o)

It involved a toilet brush, yes?

On 22 Oct 2006 02:26:22 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:17:41 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:

>On 22 Oct 2006 01:37:06 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Charles wrote:
>>
>>>You appear to have got the measure of the man Shute; it's double
>>>standards with him all the time, whereby he is the worst kind of
>>>practitioner of all those faults and practices he complains about in
>>>other people.
>>
>>>He is a complete and utter self-promoting fraud and a very unpleasant
>>>person to boot - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
>>>deserved.
>
>>I have a facility to re-insert the selective <snipping> you have
>>copied from the Hankyman, so it won't profit you at all to continue
>>adopting his pathetic and wayward habits!
>
>>
>>I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know I'd
>>beat you senseless.
>
>>You really are scraping the barrel now John Williams, offering on-line
>>violence as a way of extricating yourself from the endless holes you
>>dig yourself.
>
>>While I have no intention of responding your blustering would-be bully
>>boy threats of physical violence, you would be foolish in the extreme
>>to even begin to believe that my apparent effete cybernet persona,

>You misspelled "effeminate."

But I didn't use the word "effeminate" Mr John "Hankyman" Williams,
you silly old thing, your seeing things again.

>>indicates that a tub of lard like you would be able to intimidate or
>>subdue me in any way. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
>>for a living! ;o)

>It involved a toilet brush, yes?

Er... no it didn't actually; you seem confused again Mr John
"Hankyman" Williams, you didn't 'slip up' and hit the bottle or the
wacky baccy again last night did you? - You *are* up very late!! ;o)

>
>>The "boot up the arse" expression is a rugby club jibe and was merely
>>meant to convey, that if you came to an English rugby club and behaved
>>the way you do here, you would be very quickly reappraised and hacked
>>down to size collectively - or figuratively, given a good boot up the
>>arse.
>
>>It was in no way a threat of physical threat of violence from me to
>>you, unlike your very confrontational response - which was utterly
>>banal and meaningless. And certainly not the conduct of an officer of
>>the court. Such unprofessional behaviour would result in someone in
>>the law in the UK getting struck off!
>
>>I thought you had decided to forgo the pleasure of responding to me
>>direct? It's quite uncanny how I manage to draw you out John Williams,
>>despite all your resolve not to fall into the trap! ;o)
>
>>I just thought you ought to know that you silly old man. For goodness
>>sake grown up and act your age.
>
>>How about 'little fingers' Johnny dear? <VBG>

Your silly responses above are examples of 'repartee' of the poorest
quality John Williams, and would perhaps be more suited to a teenager
type chat room (not that I have any experience of such places!).

You really used to be capable of much better. If you don't raise your
game I may have to kick you into touch! (No dear, that's not an offer
of violence, it's purely another English expression meaning I will no
longer answer the door when you come knocking wanting me to play.) ;o)

HTH!

HAGS!

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:46:35 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:

>On 22 Oct 2006 02:26:22 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 10:17:41 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Oct 2006 01:37:06 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>>You appear to have got the measure of the man Shute; it's double
>>>>standards with him all the time, whereby he is the worst kind of
>>>>practitioner of all those faults and practices he complains about in
>>>>other people.
>>>
>>>>He is a complete and utter self-promoting fraud and a very unpleasant
>>>>person to boot - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
>>>>deserved.
>>
>>>I have a facility to re-insert the selective <snipping> you have
>>>copied from the Hankyman, so it won't profit you at all to continue
>>>adopting his pathetic and wayward habits!
>>
>>>
>>>I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know I'd
>>>beat you senseless.
>>
>>>You really are scraping the barrel now John Williams, offering on-line
>>>violence as a way of extricating yourself from the endless holes you
>>>dig yourself.
>>
>>>While I have no intention of responding your blustering would-be bully
>>>boy threats of physical violence, you would be foolish in the extreme
>>>to even begin to believe that my apparent effete cybernet persona,
>
>>You misspelled "effeminate."
>
>But I didn't use the word "effeminate" Mr John "Hankyman" Williams,
>you silly old thing, your seeing things again.

Of course that should read: "you're", a silly mistake - sorry John!
;o)

>
>>>indicates that a tub of lard like you would be able to intimidate or
>>>subdue me in any way. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
>>>for a living! ;o)
>
>>It involved a toilet brush, yes?
>
>Er... no it didn't actually; you seem confused again Mr John
>"Hankyman" Williams, you didn't 'slip up' and hit the bottle or the
>wacky baccy again last night did you? - You *are* up very late!! ;o)
>
>>
>>>The "boot up the arse" expression is a rugby club jibe and was merely
>>>meant to convey, that if you came to an English rugby club and behaved
>>>the way you do here, you would be very quickly reappraised and hacked
>>>down to size collectively - or figuratively, given a good boot up the
>>>arse.
>>
>>>It was in no way a threat of physical threat of violence from me to
>>>you, unlike your very confrontational response - which was utterly
>>>banal and meaningless. And certainly not the conduct of an officer of
>>>the court. Such unprofessional behaviour would result in someone in
>>>the law in the UK getting struck off!
>>
>>>I thought you had decided to forgo the pleasure of responding to me
>>>direct? It's quite uncanny how I manage to draw you out John Williams,
>>>despite all your resolve not to fall into the trap! ;o)
>>
>>>I just thought you ought to know that you silly old man. For goodness
>>>sake grown up and act your age.
>>
>>>How about 'little fingers' Johnny dear? <VBG>
>
>Your silly responses above are examples of 'repartee' of the poorest
>quality John Williams, and would perhaps be more suited to a teenager
>type chat room (not that I have any experience of such places!).
>
>You really used to be capable of much better. If you don't raise your
>game I may have to kick you into touch! (No dear, that's not an offer
>of violence, it's purely another English expression meaning I will no
>longer answer the door when you come knocking wanting me to play.) ;o)
>
>HTH!
>
>HAGS!

geek_girl wrote:
> mulbish wrote:
> > ya know I usually do not engage in such drivel...but...I post a
> > complete list of the principles followed by a few questions and you
> > don't think I get it. Is your brain half full or half empty. Are you
> > just critical by nature. The list by itself should be evident that I
> > do in fact understand and I just have a few questions. I'll stop now
> > but do me one favor and do not reply to any of my post in the future.
> > THANK YOU.
> >
>
> The question about how to use the calculator clearly indicated that you
> didn't really understand HST. If you truly understood the principles
> rather than just being able to parrot them, the calculator would make
> perfect sense to you.
>
> Sorry, you don't get to control who does or does not respond to your
> posts. In any case, you appear to be upset and I don't understand why.
> I gave you some advice that was intended to be helpful. If you choose
> not to see it that way, for whatever bizarre reasons you may have,
> that's your problem. If you're so thin-skinned that you can't handle it
> when people respond to what you wrote rather than what you wish you'd
> written, then mfw is not the place for you.

First Geek_Girl, I apologize, sincerely. I was a bit thin skinned and
you did offer a simplified HST exactly, as I requested. And for that,
I thank you.

I just took offense when you said I didn't understand after I
"parroted" (it's not like I "snipped" it, I read it through and stated
the points as I understood them to be) the program. Even though I read
it through and felt I understood it well enough and only needed a
little guidance on a few things. And I don't think not understanding
the calculator necessarily equates to not understanding HST.

Could you please tell me what the "Inc" at the top of the columns
stands for? I assume the "RM" is for reps, even though I haven't seen
this used before. And the "1" through "6" is the three works out per
week over a two week period.

I may end up using your simplified option as it seems easier to keep up
with. But since I've put some effort into understanding the program I
would like to figure the calculator out.

Thanks, and again I apologize for being so defensive.

John Williams wrote:
[...]

> Not long ago, someone (Will Brink maybe?) posted a link to a study
> that established something which is actually rather intuitive: the
> truly clueless don't even know that they're clueless.

Unconscious incompetence, John Williams.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....rch+this+group
aka http://tinyurl.com/y9dnoq

Hth.

> I'm starting to see a lot of that.

Was that a typo, John? "See" for the intended "be"?

--
Curt

John Williams wrote:
> Charles wrote:
[...]

> > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
>
> I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
> I'd beat you senseless.

Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
specific person - senseless.

One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.

But this is what it typically comes down to for people like you, John
Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.

Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would happen
until it happens. And sometimes, I'm guessing, when it happens it's too
late to wish it hadn't. There's your combination tongue twister and bit
of advice. ;o)

And did you say you're a lawyer? I thought they were taught to choose
their words carefully. Regardless, I refer you to
http://tinyurl.com/y9dnoq for apparently essential review.

--
Curt

> Charles wrote:
>> - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
>> deserved.

<rhetorical question>

Is chucky whining again?

</rhetorical question>

In addition to whining, chucky has to share his anal obsessions as well.

In article <1161526467.884243.12630@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.c om>,
"Curt James" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> And did you say you're a lawyer? I thought they were taught to choose
> their words carefully. Regardless, I refer you to
> http://tinyurl.com/y9dnoq for apparently essential review.
>
> --
> Curt

There are always these... The float around the 'net via e-mail from time
to time.

They always make me smile. ;-)

Keep one thing in mind tho, everyone hates lawyers.....

until they NEED ONE! <G>

> These are from actual court transcripts taken from the book Disorder in the
> American Courts. They are things people actually said in court, word for
> word, taken down and now published by court reporters who had the torment
> of staying calm while these exchanges were taking place.
>
> Q: Are you sexually active?
> A: No, I just lie there.
>
>
> Q: What is your date of birth?
> A: July 15.
> Q: What year?
> A: Every year.
>
>
> Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
> A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
>
>
> Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
> A: Yes.
> Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
> A: I forget.
> Q: You forget? Can you give us an example of something that you've
> forgotten?
>
>
> Q: How old is your son, the one living with you?
> A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
> Q: How long has he lived with you?
> A: Forty-five years.
>
>
> Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that
> morning?
> A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
> Q: And why did that upset you?
> A: My name is Susan.
>
>
> Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo or the
> occult?
> A: We both do.
> Q: Voodoo?
> A: We do.
> Q: You do?
> A: Yes, voodoo.
>
>
> Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
> doesn't know about it until the next morning?
> A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
>
>
> Q: The youngest son, the twenty-year-old, how old is he?
>
>
> Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?
>
>
> Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
> A: Yes.
> Q: And what were you doing at that time?
>
>
> Q: She had three children, right?
> A: Yes.
> Q: How many were boys?
> A: None.
> Q: Were there any girls?
>
>
> Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
> A: By death.
> Q: And by whose death was it terminated?
>
>
> Q: Can you describe the individual?
> A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
> Q: Was this a male, or a female?
>
>
> Q: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice
> which I sent to your attorney?
> A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
>
>
> Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
> A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
>
>
> Q: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
> A: Oral.
>
>
> Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
> A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
> Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
> A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
>
>
> Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
>
>
> Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
> A: No.
> Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
> A: No.
> Q: Did you check for breathing?
> A: No.
> Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the
> autopsy?
> A: No.
> Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
> A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
> Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
> A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing
> law somewhere.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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

Curt James wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
> > Charles wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
> >
> > I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
> > I'd beat you senseless.
>
> Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
> from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
> specific person - senseless.
>
> One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
> well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
> specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
> dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.
>
> But this is what it typically comes down to for people like you, John
> Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.
>
> Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
> until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
> and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would happen
> until it happens.

Well, Semen Cursty, why don't you spend a few hours on your big, bad
Harley; ride over to my house; and threaten to put "a boot up [my]
arse"? We'll see how it turns out for you. Just give me a call, and
I'll be waiting ... alone and unarmed.

You're taller, younger, and weigh about the same. What have you to
fear?

OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> "Curt James" wrote:

re John Williams

> > And did you say you're a lawyer? I thought they were taught
> > to choose their words carefully. Regardless, I refer you to
> > http://tinyurl.com/y9dnoq for apparently essential review.
> >
> > Curt
>
> There are always these... The float around the 'net via e-mail from
> time to time.
>
> They always make me smile. ;-)
>
> Keep one thing in mind tho, everyone hates lawyers.....
>
> until they NEED ONE! <G>

;o) heh

But, to be clear, Om, I do not hate lawyers. I don't even hate John M.
Williams. I do, however, recognize him as someone who is what I'd call
a blowhard as well as a person who makes obvious errors or, worse,
deliberate misstatements.

His calling you a conduit for one while repeatedly acting in a similar
manner. Goose versus gander, anyone? His calling David an enabler while
he in turn exhibits the exact same enabling behavior as a second
example. And certainly his commenting that he could beat a fellow
patron of MFW senseless would be a grossly negligent statement, imo, if
made by any member of the American Bar Association. Unprofessional at
best.

He mentioned Google in a pejorative sense recently. No surprise there
as I've accused him of hypocrisy more than once. It's not libel, imo,
as he is an apparent faithful fan of that search engine. How can he
criticize those who use the search engine while he relies on it as
well? Hypocrite. Of course, his most recent jab was towards those who
parrot without understanding as if he's the only one who has any kind
of ability to comprehend the written word.

A cursory Google led to the following words:

"So, we have come full circle to the concept of professionalism. It is
at the core of what we do as lawyers-but it might not distinguish us.
Rather, it is also at the core of the only workable solution to the
challenge of the corporate scandals. Our corporations can become
better, by our becoming better. Our educational institutions are not
powerless to help; they need only reinforce what every one of us was
raised by our parents to know: that you do not take from another, and
that humans should not be judged by the things they own but by what
they give away. If you believe the latter, the former is no
temptation."
Tom Campbell, Dean, Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley
<http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/campbell.html>

Does Williams comprehend the concept of professionalism? Williams
succumbs to temptation time and time again, imo. He brags, he name
calls, he self-promotes, he condescends, and now he threatens. At least
from my perspective. Ymmv.

-=snipped the jokes=-

> Peace, Om

I snipped 'em but read (and laughed) as well. Thanks for the words, Om.


--
Curt

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:30:00 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
<leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very
>>> deserved.
>
><rhetorical question>
>
>Is chucky whining again?
>
></rhetorical question>

<unequivocal answer>

No, "chucky"[sic] is winning again!

</unequivocal answer>

(If you took your slobbering head out of Williams fat aged arse, you
would be able to speak a little more coherently, instead of with
tongue in cheek.)

>
>In addition to whining, chucky has to share his anal obsessions as well.
>

In addition to winning again "chucky" [sic] is seeing the idiot
Michaels introducing "anal obsessions" from innocuous common cliches
like "boot up the arse", which may mean that the Idiot Michaels takes
it up the bum!

The idiot Michaels certainly looks like a recidivist that has been
repeatedly incarcerated for un-natural practices, which may or may not
include taking or placing it up the bum of those not so inclined!!

See the idiot at:
http://www.fitnwell.net/lee%20michaels.jpg

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>>It seems to me that MFW has recently become filled with "advisors" who
>>>Google and parrot but have no real understanding of the underlying
>>>subject matter.
>>
>>As opposed to you who knows all and says nothing.
>
> What could one possibly say to you?

"Hey, I don't need my windshield washed! Here's a buck. Go away."

David

On 22 Oct 2006 09:06:25 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Curt James wrote:
>> John Williams wrote:
>> > Charles wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
>> >
>> > I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
>> > I'd beat you senseless.
>>
>> Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
>> from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
>> specific person - senseless.
>>
>> One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
>> well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
>> specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
>> dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.
>>
>> But this is what it typically comes down to for people like you, John
>> Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
>> until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
>> and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would happen
>> until it happens.
>
>Well, Semen Cursty, why don't you spend a few hours on your big, bad
>Harley; ride over to my house; and threaten to put "a boot up [my]
>arse"? We'll see how it turns out for you. Just give me a call, and
>I'll be waiting ... alone and unarmed.
>
>You're taller, younger, and weigh about the same. What have you to
>fear?

Reminds me of the kind of things a person would say if jacked up on
test enan and d-bol.

I'm not suggesting that you are jacked up on such things.

--
Is this thing on?

John Williams wrote:
> Shute wrote:
> >JMW wrote:
> >
> >><snip> the truly clueless don't even know that they're clueless.

Unconscious incompetence, John. You'd think you'd be familiar with that
term by now.

> >>I'm starting to see a lot of that.

Lots of mirrors in your home? ;o)

> >You are one of the most twisted people I have ever met on Usenet.
> >You spend time playing with Curt's nipples in Photoshop.

Can you blame him? I'm a SEXAAAY BEAST!!!!

http://www.rustyiron.net/curtinfl.jpg

> Photographs of Curt are a blank canvas for comical artwork.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...hgeeeenius.jpg


Hey, who am I to argue?

> His personality is the inspiration.

My personality could DEFINITELY beat your personality senseless! ;o) Of
course, your personality is the equivalent of the proverbial 97-pound
weakling, John.

> If Curt didn't exist, some humorist would be obliged to invent him.

No doubt.

> >Then post the images up on your website so you can show
> >everyone what you do in your spare time.

Hey, Shute, Williams plays with male nipples.

(shrugs)

Whatsa matta? You some kinda homophobe???

> Is your concern about that part of your privacy/anonymity obsession?

Hold up, J Dubya! What obsession? See, here's your typical BS. The guy
posts under an assumed nickname and suddenly it's an obsession about
privacy and anonymity?

> Have you ever considered the possibility that you're just a pussy?

Like I said, you're a name caller. You condescend. You have issues.
And, yes, your personality is just one of them.

Hth.

--
Curt

Joe Humble wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2006 09:06:25 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Curt James wrote:
> >> John Williams wrote:
> >> > Charles wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
> >> >
> >> > I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
> >> > I'd beat you senseless.
> >>
> >> Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
> >> from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
> >> specific person - senseless.
> >>
> >> One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
> >> well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
> >> specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
> >> dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.
> >>
> >> But this is what it typically comes down to for people like you, John
> >> Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
> >> until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
> >> and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would happen
> >> until it happens.
> >
> >Well, Semen Cursty, why don't you spend a few hours on your big, bad
> >Harley; ride over to my house; and threaten to put "a boot up [my]
> >arse"? We'll see how it turns out for you. Just give me a call, and
> >I'll be waiting ... alone and unarmed.
> >
> >You're taller, younger, and weigh about the same. What have you to
> >fear?
>
> Reminds me of the kind of things a person would say if jacked up on
> test enan and d-bol.
>
> I'm not suggesting that you are jacked up on such things.

Nope. At least not until I go on vacation where such things are legal.

Curt James wrote:
>
> Does Williams comprehend the concept of professionalism? Williams
> succumbs to temptation time and time again, imo. He brags, he name
> calls, he self-promotes, he condescends, and now he threatens. At least
> from my perspective.

It's difficult to see things from your perspective:

http://www.fitnwell.net/upownass.jpg

John Williams wrote:
> Curt James wrote:
> > John Williams wrote:
> > > Charles wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
> > >
> > > I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
> > > I'd beat you senseless.
> >
> > Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
> > from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
> > specific person - senseless.
> >
> > One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
> > well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
> > specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
> > dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.
> >
> > But this is what it typically comes down to for
> > people like you, John Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> > Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
> > until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
> > and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would
> > happen until it happens.
>
> Well, Semen Cursty,

Cursty?

Did you mean Crusty, Curtsy, or something else?

> why don't you spend a few hours on your big, bad Harley; ride over
> to my house;

Ping me with an address.

> and threaten to put "a boot up [my] arse"?

Reading comprehension a problem for you, J Dubya? See above. Or, hey,
I'll repeat it here, "people like you," Johnny.

I don't make threats.

> We'll see how it turns out for you. Just give me a call,

Ping me with a phone number.

> and I'll be waiting ... alone

No friends? No surprise.

> and unarmed.

Egad! Will they be able to reattach your limbs?!

> You're taller,

6'1" last I checked.

> younger,

44 years and about two months.

> and weigh about the same.

I've dipped down to 181.

> What have you to fear?

You might get spit on me?

--
Curt

In article <1161537007.330512.31750@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
"JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It's difficult to see things from your perspective:
>
> http://www.fitnwell.net/upownass.jpg

That has got to be one of the most priceless photoshop jobs on the
entire internet. ;-)
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 12:31:34 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
<omp_omelet@gmail.com> wrote:

>In article <1161537007.330512.31750@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.c om>,
> "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It's difficult to see things from your perspective:
>>
>> http://www.fitnwell.net/upownass.jpg
>
>That has got to be one of the most priceless photoshop jobs on the
>entire internet. ;-)

Well John 'Beat you Senseless' Williams has as usual misappropriated
something from my web site, and once again used it for his own
purpose.

The original caption has it as:

"Lucas Buck & Proton Soul (Who are interchangeable
bookends)" ;o)

See:
http://www.fitnwell.net/MFW%20Photos.htm

Hope you're having a great Sunday Om mate - I am, although it's
rapidly running out! ;o)

On 22 Oct 2006 09:06:25 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>Curt James wrote:
>> John Williams wrote:
>> > Charles wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> > > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
>> >
>> > I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
>> > I'd beat you senseless.
>>
>> Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
>> from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
>> specific person - senseless.
>>
>> One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
>> well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
>> specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
>> dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.
>>
>> But this is what it typically comes down to for people like you, John
>> Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.
>>
>> Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
>> until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
>> and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would happen
>> until it happens.
>
>Well, Semen Cursty, why don't you spend a few hours on your big, bad
>Harley; ride over to my house; and threaten to put "a boot up [my]
>arse"? We'll see how it turns out for you. Just give me a call, and
>I'll be waiting ... alone and unarmed.
>
>You're taller, younger, and weigh about the same. What have you to
>fear?

Yet another unprovoked offer of violence Mr Williams; have you been
overdoing it on the Steroids again?

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:42:34 GMT, "David Cohen"
<sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote
>> Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> JMW <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>It seems to me that MFW has recently become filled with "advisors" who
>>>>Google and parrot but have no real understanding of the underlying
>>>>subject matter.
>>>
>>>As opposed to you who knows all and says nothing.
>>
>> What could one possibly say to you?
>
>"Hey, I don't need my windshield washed! Here's a buck. Go away."
>

Be careful Cohen, the Hankyman impersonator is in no mood for humour
or cliches, and he may make you the third person today that he has
offered to "beat senseless", cybernetically speaking of course, which
is much safer than actually getting one's arse actually booted for
real. ;o)

Charles wrote:
> "JMW" wrote:
> >Curt James wrote:
> >> John Williams wrote:
> >> > Charles wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > > - and a well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved.
> >> >
> >> > I guess you'd better find someone who can do it, since you know
> >> > I'd beat you senseless.
> >>
> >> Stating that a person deserves a "boot up his arse" is very different
> >> from stating that you as an individual could beat another person - a
> >> specific person - senseless.
> >>
> >> One is more general as in, "Y has made some poor choices, imo, and a
> >> well placed boot up his arse would be very deserved." And the other is
> >> specific as in, "since you know I'd beat Z senseless." Too specific. A
> >> dangerous, some might say foolish, statement.
> >>
> >> But this is what it typically comes down to for people like you, John
> >> Williams - the dreaded keyboard flex.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, you don't know how such an encounter would finalize
> >> until you've actually had that encounter. Oh, certainly you can brag
> >> and make claims and predictions, but you don't know what would happen
> >> until it happens.
> >
> >Well, Semen Cursty,

I still say that was supposed to be either Crusty or Curtsy. Meh.

> >why don't you spend a few hours on your big, bad Harley; ride over to
> >my house; and threaten to put "a boot up [my] arse"?

That would be a decent ride, actually.

> >We'll see how it turns out for you. Just give me a call, and I'll be waiting ...
> >alone and unarmed.

Still no email with an address or phone number, though. Guess his offer
was just so much hot air. Again, meh. And no surprise.

> >You're taller, younger, and weigh about the same.

YOU FORGOT BETTER LOOKING, EMMY! MUCH BETTER LOOKING!

AND ~*LOUDER*~!!!!!!!!

> >What have you to fear?

Your nose? I mean that thing is a lethal weapon. What if you have a
cold? One sneeze and me and my Harley wind up in parts unknown.

> Yet another unprovoked offer of violence Mr Williams;
> have you been overdoing it on the Steroids again?

Oh, come now, Charles! Unprovoked? I'm not sure about that.

Still, some provoke much easier than others. ;o)

--
Curt

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 04:26:35 -0400, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>You are one of the most twisted people I have ever met on Usenet. You
>>spend time playing with Curt's nipples in Photoshop.
>
>Photographs of Curt are a blank canvas for comical artwork. His
>personality is the inspiration. If Curt didn't exist, some humorist
>would be obliged to invent him.

Maybe that is part of your problem. You think people on here are
characters from TV instead of real people.

>>Then post the
>>images up on your website so you can show everyone what you do in your
>>spare time.
>
>Is your concern about that part of your privacy/anonymity obsession?

Possibly. But I feel what you do is disturbing. This woman I worked
with told me how someone had tied all her underwear together in the
apartments laundry room. The stuff you gives me the same feeling. I
mean you could have played with Britney Spears breasts but instead you
chose Curt.

>Have you ever considered the possibility that you're just a pussy?

One can protect themselves in many ways. Not offering up
vulnerabilities doesn't make me a pussy.

In article <5bcnj2prd6ip2c5usqomhjfmi2i31a9fog@4ax.com>,
Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:

> Hope you're having a great Sunday Om mate - I am, although it's
> rapidly running out! ;o)

I am sir! :-)

I'm chilling out and watching movies but I'll be moving about here
shortly and cleaning up the kitchen. I have an obligation to prepare a
decent Sunday dinner for my father.

Fortunately, it's something I enjoy...

Cheers mate!
--
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 <1161535102.618017.265990@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
"Curt James" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does Williams comprehend the concept of professionalism? Williams
> succumbs to temptation time and time again, imo. He brags, he name
> calls, he self-promotes, he condescends, and now he threatens. At least
> from my perspective. Ymmv.

During my studies on gun handling, (most of the good gun manuals are
written by retired policed officers including Massad Ayoob and Gabriel
Suarez), I've gained a greater understanding of the criminal mind, and a
greater understanding of what the legal system deals with when it comes
to real criminals.

They regard us law abiding citizens as legal prey...... and LEO's as
their sworn enemies.

I have gained a greater regard and respect for what he has to deal with
in his daily career.

This is therapy and relaxation so I'll cut him some slack. ;-)

>
> -=snipped the jokes=-
>
> > Peace, Om
>
> I snipped 'em but read (and laughed) as well. Thanks for the words, Om.
>
>
> --
> Curt

Cheers sir!

Best of luck in turning your students into decent human beings. Most
parents don't have the time to do that anymore. You have a pretty big
responsibility.

So does JMW.
--
Peace, Om

Remove _ to validate e-mails.

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