Leg curling vs. squatting

Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:38:02 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:57:29 -0000, "Bully"
>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pete wrote:
>>>>> "Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. He foully attempted to solicit the services of another man's
>>>>>> wife, for the purpose of violating her anally for his own
>>>>>> gratification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Common, that was funny!
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>> business!!!
>>>
>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>>
>>> Back-door sex
>>
>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>>
>>> is quite common practice despite the fact it is
>>> considered in law to be illegal and un-natural, unless of course you
>>> happen to be a brownhatter when it all becomes quire 'normal'
>>> apparently!
>>
>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?

Yes, or no?


> Perhaps it's time to see those plump tits of Mrs Simpson again Neil,

Now you've really lost it!!!


> and those tubby photos of you too!!

Go for it; I'm sure you've looked after them VERY carefully xxx






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

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:40:35 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:34:32 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> JMW wrote:
>>>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:17:13 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:57:29 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of
>>>>>>>>> back-door business!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In fact it is the legal interpretation "Bully."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Legal??? Interpretation??? WTF Are you on about now???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trust me "Bully", you really don't want to get involved in these
>>>>>> grubby practices...
>>>>>
>>>>> So exactly did you find the "legal interpretation" of back-door
>>>>> business, eh John?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure there is a legal interpretation. I suppose his
>>>> interpretation is informed by many years at sea with a ship full of
>>>> men.
>>>
>>> Yes, you see my interpretation is far less salacious than Johnny
>>> boys' although probably less likely to leave him in a state of
>>> arousal.
>>
>> You obviously don't have a clue Neil, and the sad so-called American
>> lying lawyer is unable to explain the law to you.
>>
>> Viz:
>>
>> An act of buggery, or anal sex, is illegal with women even with their
>> consent. It is considered to be an un-natural act.
>>
>> The same act is legal between consenting males, in private, if both
>> parties to the act of buggery are aged sixteen years or over.
>>
>> There is quite a startling anomaly there, but so is much of English
>> common and criminal law.
>>
>> The law in America varies from State to State, and in some States is
>> very much stricter than English law, and very much more enforced and
>> punished.
>>
>> HTH!
>
>That's the legal interpretation of back-door business?

Now watch my lips Neil:

Go back through the thread and try and read slowly what has been
written. If you still can't understand come back and I'll gladly tell
you to fuck off you thick prick!

Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:39:36 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:57:29 -0000, "Bully"
>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pete wrote:
>>>>> "Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. He foully attempted to solicit the services of another man's
>>>>>> wife, for the purpose of violating her anally for his own
>>>>>> gratification.
>>>>>
>>>>> Common, that was funny!
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>> business!!!
>>>
>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>>
>>> Back-door sex is quite common practice despite the fact it is
>>> considered in law to be illegal and un-natural, unless of course you
>>> happen to be a brownhatter when it all becomes quire 'normal'
>>> apparently!
>>>
>>> See:
>>> http://www.lustbook.com/hers/free/714.shtml
>>>
>>> HTH!
>>
>> Google did you proud this time eh?
>
> You could just apologise and say you were wrong again Neil! ;o)

Here, let me help: back-door sex <> back-door business !!!



--
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

Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:40:35 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:34:32 -0000, "Bully"
>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>
>>>> JMW wrote:
>>>>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:17:13 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:57:29 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of
>>>>>>>>>> back-door business!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact it is the legal interpretation "Bully."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Legal??? Interpretation??? WTF Are you on about now???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Trust me "Bully", you really don't want to get involved in these
>>>>>>> grubby practices...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So exactly did you find the "legal interpretation" of back-door
>>>>>> business, eh John?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure there is a legal interpretation. I suppose his
>>>>> interpretation is informed by many years at sea with a ship full
>>>>> of men.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you see my interpretation is far less salacious than Johnny
>>>> boys' although probably less likely to leave him in a state of
>>>> arousal.
>>>
>>> You obviously don't have a clue Neil, and the sad so-called American
>>> lying lawyer is unable to explain the law to you.
>>>
>>> Viz:
>>>
>>> An act of buggery, or anal sex, is illegal with women even with
>>> their consent. It is considered to be an un-natural act.
>>>
>>> The same act is legal between consenting males, in private, if both
>>> parties to the act of buggery are aged sixteen years or over.
>>>
>>> There is quite a startling anomaly there, but so is much of English
>>> common and criminal law.
>>>
>>> The law in America varies from State to State, and in some States is
>>> very much stricter than English law, and very much more enforced and
>>> punished.
>>>
>>> HTH!
>>
>> That's the legal interpretation of back-door business?
>
> Now watch my lips Neil:
>
> Go back through the thread and try and read slowly what has been
> written. If you still can't understand come back and I'll gladly tell
> you to fuck off you thick prick!

John, there was so much spittle flying about that it was difficult to see
anything. Plus your wheezing cough and the clacking of your false teeth were
making too much noise to hear you properly.

--
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:

>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>> business!!!

>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.

>> Back-door sex

> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!

> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!

Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...

----
Pete

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:56:27 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:38:02 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:57:29 -0000, "Bully"
>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pete wrote:
>>>>>> "Charles" <jrh@msn.com> schreef:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. He foully attempted to solicit the services of another man's
>>>>>>> wife, for the purpose of violating her anally for his own
>>>>>>> gratification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Common, that was funny!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>> Pete
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>>> business!!!
>>>>
>>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>>>
>>>> Back-door sex
>>>
>>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>>>
>>>> is quite common practice despite the fact it is
>>>> considered in law to be illegal and un-natural, unless of course you
>>>> happen to be a brownhatter when it all becomes quire 'normal'
>>>> apparently!
>>>
>>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>
>Yes, or no?
>
>
>> Perhaps it's time to see those plump tits of Mrs Simpson again Neil,
>
>Now you've really lost it!!!

It is always thin ice when we introduce innocent parties, but you did
venture beyond what is acceptable and must expect retaliation in kind.

(And you know exactly what I'm talking about as it was you that
proudly posted those .jpegs of your wife.)

>
>> and those tubby photos of you too!!
>
>Go for it; I'm sure you've looked after them VERY carefully xxx

They are in a safe place close to my heart (my arse pocket) and are
being saved for a special occasion! ;o)

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:02:29 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:40:35 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:34:32 -0000, "Bully"
>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> JMW wrote:
>>>>>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:17:13 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:57:29 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of
>>>>>>>>>>> back-door business!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In fact it is the legal interpretation "Bully."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Legal??? Interpretation??? WTF Are you on about now???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trust me "Bully", you really don't want to get involved in these
>>>>>>>> grubby practices...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So exactly did you find the "legal interpretation" of back-door
>>>>>>> business, eh John?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure there is a legal interpretation. I suppose his
>>>>>> interpretation is informed by many years at sea with a ship full
>>>>>> of men.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you see my interpretation is far less salacious than Johnny
>>>>> boys' although probably less likely to leave him in a state of
>>>>> arousal.
>>>>
>>>> You obviously don't have a clue Neil, and the sad so-called American
>>>> lying lawyer is unable to explain the law to you.
>>>>
>>>> Viz:
>>>>
>>>> An act of buggery, or anal sex, is illegal with women even with
>>>> their consent. It is considered to be an un-natural act.
>>>>
>>>> The same act is legal between consenting males, in private, if both
>>>> parties to the act of buggery are aged sixteen years or over.
>>>>
>>>> There is quite a startling anomaly there, but so is much of English
>>>> common and criminal law.
>>>>
>>>> The law in America varies from State to State, and in some States is
>>>> very much stricter than English law, and very much more enforced and
>>>> punished.
>>>>
>>>> HTH!
>>>
>>> That's the legal interpretation of back-door business?
>>
>> Now watch my lips Neil:
>>
>> Go back through the thread and try and read slowly what has been
>> written. If you still can't understand come back and I'll gladly tell
>> you to fuck off you thick prick!
>
>John, there was so much spittle flying about that it was difficult to see
>anything.

Use a magnifying glass or get new specs you blind old bastard.

>Plus your wheezing cough and the clacking of your false teeth were
>making too much noise to hear you properly.

You're confusing my "clacking false teeth" with the flapping of the
cheeks of your arse when you get excited and talk too fast from your
rear end!

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:18:46 +0100, "Pete" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl>
wrote:

>"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>> business!!!
>
>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>
>>> Back-door sex
>
>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>
>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!
>
>Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...
>

I thought that might 'prick' up yaw rears! ;o)

Charles wrote:

[...]

WELL???? You didn't answer the question.

--
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

Pete wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>
>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>> business!!!
>
>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>
>>> Back-door sex
>
>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>
>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!
>
> Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...
>
> ----
> Pete

See, Pete want to know too xxx !!!

--
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 Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>WELL???? You didn't answer the question.

You've cut it out cunt!

Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> WELL???? You didn't answer the question.
>
> You've cut it out cunt!

Ah, the old memory eh?
--
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> wrote:
>Pete wrote:
>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>>
>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>>> business!!!
>>
>>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>
>>>> Back-door sex
>>
>>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>>
>>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>>
>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!
>>
>> Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...
>
>See, Pete want to know too xxx !!!

He may be more cosmopolitan than you think. I get the feeling that he
has an interest in Harley Davidson motorcycles because I heard that he
and Curt were exchanging private emails about the AstroGlide.

JMW wrote:
> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>> Pete wrote:
>>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of
>>>>>> back-door business!!!
>>>
>>>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>>
>>>>> Back-door sex
>>>
>>>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>>>
>>>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>>>
>>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!
>>>
>>> Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...
>>
>> See, Pete want to know too xxx !!!
>
> He may be more cosmopolitan than you think. I get the feeling that he
> has an interest in Harley Davidson motorcycles because I heard that he
> and Curt were exchanging private emails about the AstroGlide.

Ahem!

--
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 Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:05:07 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> WELL???? You didn't answer the question.
>>
>> You've cut it out cunt!
>
>Ah, the old memory eh?

That's a poor excuse, you should be able to remember what happened 10
minutes ago!

Try doing the Telegraph Suduko every day, it does wonders for
recalcitrant grey cells.

On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:09:18 -0500, JMW
<jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> wrote:

>"Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>Pete wrote:
>>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of back-door
>>>>>> business!!!
>>>
>>>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>>
>>>>> Back-door sex
>>>
>>>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>>>
>>>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>>>
>>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!
>>>
>>> Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...
>>
>>See, Pete want to know too xxx !!!
>
>He may be more cosmopolitan than you think. I get the feeling that he
>has an interest in Harley Davidson motorcycles because I heard that he
>and Curt were exchanging private emails about the AstroGlide.

Are you going to apologise for yesterday's calumny John "Liar"
Williams, before allowing your crude, homoerotic fantasies to add to
your burgeoning list of unprofessional misdeeds?

On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:10:51 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>JMW wrote:
>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>> Pete wrote:
>>>> "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> schreef:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, but strangely that was "Charles'" interpretation of
>>>>>>> back-door business!!!
>>>>
>>>>>> You are naive in the extreme Neil.
>>>>
>>>>>> Back-door sex
>>>>
>>>>> No, we were talking about the phrase "back-door business" !!!
>>>>
>>>>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?
>>>>
>>>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!
>>>>
>>>> Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...
>>>
>>> See, Pete want to know too xxx !!!
>>
>> He may be more cosmopolitan than you think. I get the feeling that he
>> has an interest in Harley Davidson motorcycles because I heard that he
>> and Curt were exchanging private emails about the AstroGlide.
>
>Ahem!

Amen!

Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:05:07 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully"
>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> WELL???? You didn't answer the question.
>>>
>>> You've cut it out cunt!
>>
>> Ah, the old memory eh?
>
> That's a poor excuse, you should be able to remember what happened 10
> minutes ago!
>
> Try doing the Telegraph Suduko every day, it does wonders for
> recalcitrant grey cells.

You should know.

--
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 Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:55:40 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:05:07 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully"
>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> WELL???? You didn't answer the question.
>>>>
>>>> You've cut it out cunt!
>>>
>>> Ah, the old memory eh?
>>
>> That's a poor excuse, you should be able to remember what happened 10
>> minutes ago!
>>
>> Try doing the Telegraph Suduko every day, it does wonders for
>> recalcitrant grey cells.
>
>You should know.

That's a classic IKYABYSYA children's response.

However, I do know, as there is nothing wrong with my grey cells, and
yours could certainly do with a little sharpening up.

Unfortunately, it's a little late to instill any degree of culture or
education into you, thus it is likely that you will remain a
Philistine 'til the day you plummet from your perch.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news old chum! ;o)

Bully wrote:
[...]

> <snip> the wrong woman.

Engaged three times, but never married might indicate that I'd agree
unequivocally with those words, however it's not so black and white,
imo.

There is no "wrong woman." That old adage, it takes two to tango, is
very true from my perspective. Two wonderful people can mix like water
and oil immediately or after a period of time. The so-called wrong
woman is typically the product of a poor mix or some outside influence
or, yeah, the ever popular..."other."

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

Curt
Dr. Phil bars: http://www.drphil.com/

--

Charles wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:55:40 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:05:07 -0000, "Bully"
>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WELL???? You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've cut it out cunt!
>>>>
>>>> Ah, the old memory eh?
>>>
>>> That's a poor excuse, you should be able to remember what happened
>>> 10 minutes ago!
>>>
>>> Try doing the Telegraph Suduko every day, it does wonders for
>>> recalcitrant grey cells.
>>
>> You should know.
>
> That's a classic IKYABYSYA children's response.
>
> However, I do know, as there is nothing wrong with my grey cells, and
> yours could certainly do with a little sharpening up.
>
> Unfortunately, it's a little late to instill any degree of culture or
> education into you, thus it is likely that you will remain a
> Philistine 'til the day you plummet from your perch.
>
> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news old chum! ;o)

I'm no chum of yours.

--
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 Thu, 9 Nov 2006 06:57:18 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:55:40 -0000, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 19:05:07 -0000, "Bully"
>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:49:57 -0000, "Bully"
>>>>>> <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WELL???? You didn't answer the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've cut it out cunt!
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the old memory eh?
>>>>
>>>> That's a poor excuse, you should be able to remember what happened
>>>> 10 minutes ago!
>>>>
>>>> Try doing the Telegraph Suduko every day, it does wonders for
>>>> recalcitrant grey cells.
>>>
>>> You should know.
>>
>> That's a classic IKYABYSYA children's response.
>>
>> However, I do know, as there is nothing wrong with my grey cells, and
>> yours could certainly do with a little sharpening up.
>>
>> Unfortunately, it's a little late to instill any degree of culture or
>> education into you, thus it is likely that you will remain a
>> Philistine 'til the day you plummet from your perch.
>>
>> Sorry to be the bearer of bad news old chum! ;o)
>
>I'm no chum of yours.

Hallo Bully Boy, sorry for the late start mate, working late last
night.

How the fuck are and here we go again! ;o)

NEXT!

"JMW" <jmwilliams@enforcergraphics.f2s.com> schreef:

>>>> You've never slipped it up Mrs Hudsons' Gary then?

>>> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH !!!

>>> Damn, i am curieus to the response. Will read that tomorrow...

>>See, Pete want to know too xxx !!!

> He may be more cosmopolitan than you think. I get the feeling that he
> has an interest in Harley Davidson motorcycles because I heard that he
> and Curt were exchanging private emails about the AstroGlide.

Fuck the AstroGlide. I prefer a little friction.

Not to mention that i enjoy inficting a little pain while i have sex.

I just wish that sodomy was illigal here... making everything legal takes
all the fun away.

"Honey...is it... safe?"

"I think so, i didnt see a police car in the proximity..."

"Okay, lets do it, before they came back !!!"

"And smoke some of that illigal stuff first!!!"

My Government fucked everything up by making everything legal.

----
Pete

Make sure you have good insurance to cover you like.
**Need Dental?? $19.95 a month Entire Household includes FREE Benefits:
Vision/Prescriptions/Chiropractic
http://www.EveryoneBenefits.com/40443189
Or
** Need Discounts on HealthCare?? $59.95 a month Entire Household
includes
FREE Benefits: Dental/Vision/Prescriptions/Chiropractic/
Ancilliary Care
http://www.MyHomeBusinessPays.com/40443189

Call around and ask my plan

On 8 Nov 2006 21:23:54 -0800, "Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bully wrote:
>[...]
>
>> <snip> the wrong woman.
>
>Engaged three times, but never married might indicate that I'd agree
>unequivocally with those words, however it's not so black and white,
>imo.
>
>There is no "wrong woman."

Dally is wrong, almost always.

"Curt" <curtjames@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163049834.473730.129250@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Bully wrote:
> [...]
>
>> <snip> the wrong woman.
>
> Engaged three times, but never married might indicate that I'd agree
> unequivocally with those words, however it's not so black and white,
> imo.
>
> There is no "wrong woman."

Though I'm guessing some woman with a red hair do screaming about "just you
and your hand tonight!" wouldnt leave you with the most positive feelings
about your chances?

Bill

Bill wrote:
I scribbled:
> > There is no "wrong woman."
>
> Though I'm guessing some woman with a red hair do
> screaming about "just you and your hand tonight!"
> wouldnt leave you with the most positive feelings
> about your chances?

TOO MUCH INFORMATION, BILL!!!

I honestly don't care *what* you do while watching I Love Lucy reruns,
okay? ;o)

> Bill

--
Curt

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-CF0620.06140506112006@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <85S2h.7635$t14.5127@newsfe09.lga>,
> "ATP*" <waxwingslain@azurepane.com> wrote:
>
>> "Stu" <sswain@iname.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162516087.489377.149950@f16g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>> > Hobbes wrote:
>> >> You proabably aren't squatting ass-to-the-grass either, are you?
>> >>
>> >> If you were your hamstrings would be taxed. I mean going heavy and
>> >> down
>> >> to where your hamstrings touch your calves.
>> >>
>> >> Most people I know who say squats don't work hamstrings are doing
>> >> partial squats.
>> >
>> > Define partial...
>> >
>> > I call a partial squat anything less than parallel, but it sounds to me
>> > like you'd call partial anything less than attg?
>> >
>> > I squat below parallel, but yes I could go deeper, ie until my
>> > hamstrings and calves are squashed together... which is probably going
>> > about 2-3" further.
>>
>> Squashing together is not good. That's going too far, as it creates a
>> fulcrum at the point of contact.
>>
>>
>
> No. It takes pressure off the knee and transfers it to other surfaces.
>
> --
> Keith

Wouldn't both factors would come into play? Has anyone looked at the actual
pressure created at different points and verified it one way or the other?
If you squashed something in a nutcracker midway the pivot would be subject
to stress. Break the nut at the end of the handles, no opening stress on the
pivot.

I squat to moderate contact- which is well below parallel, but I have gone
deeper in the past.