Waist size mystery solved! ;o)

I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
diminutive waistline.

I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
board.

One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
with elasticated waistbands.

Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
to the garments stretching facilities.

Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
have a waist size of 32".

<VBG>

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:26:44 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:

>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>diminutive waistline.
>
>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>board.
>
>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>with elasticated waistbands.
>
>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>to the garments stretching facilities.
>
>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>have a waist size of 32".
>
><VBG>

It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here. But ...

I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)

Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
about themselves.

I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
barracks.

I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
clothing.

So. I'm in 34" jeans. What I don't know is if I'm about the same size
as I was in college. (I weighed 222 this morning ... I guess I'm close
.... unless, of course, my scale is providing Vanity Weighing.)

In article <pur1k2t6m3f1pp4m649dg3fpr6u9l1d164@4ax.com>, d wells wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:26:44 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
> >diminutive waistline.
> >
> >I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
> >amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
> >outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
> >whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
> >board.
> >
> >One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
> >solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
> >middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
> >with elasticated waistbands.
> >
> >Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
> >capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
> >to the garments stretching facilities.
> >
> >Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
> >the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
> >have a waist size of 32".
> >
> ><VBG>
>
> It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
> John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here. But ...
>
> I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
> been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
> while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
> I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)
>
> Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
> and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
> new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
> were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
> sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
> about themselves.
>
> I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
> only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
> manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
> all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
> a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
> wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
> barracks.
>
> I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
> back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
> clothing.
>
> So. I'm in 34" jeans. What I don't know is if I'm about the same size
> as I was in college. (I weighed 222 this morning ... I guess I'm close
> ... unless, of course, my scale is providing Vanity Weighing.)

Dayum. That is interesting stuff. I had never heard of that before. Says
a lot about our culture - perception versus reality and all that.

--
Keith

d wrote:
> Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
> >diminutive waistline.
> >
> >I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
> >amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
> >outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
> >whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
> >board.
> >
> >One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
> >solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
> >middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
> >with elasticated waistbands.
> >
> >Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
> >capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
> >to the garments stretching facilities.
> >
> >Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
> >the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
> >have a waist size of 32".
> >
> ><VBG>
>
> It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
> John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here. But ...
>
> I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
> been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
> while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
> I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)
>
> Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
> and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
> new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
> were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
> sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
> about themselves.
>
> I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
> only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
> manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
> all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
> a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
> wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
> barracks.
>
> I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
> back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
> clothing.

Since my the 32x34 jeans I bought a few weeks ago were Lee brand, I
decided to do an actual measurement. The "tale of the tape" as 34.25
inches. So I guess there is some truth to that. However, it's not the
eight inches that John "Chubby Charles" Hudson was fantasizing about.

"Hobbes" wrote
>
> Dayum. That is interesting stuff. I had never heard of that before. Says
> a lot about our culture - perception versus reality and all that.
>
What is this reality you speak of Keith??

In article <I8WdnQpirM4JmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Hobbes" wrote
> >
> > Dayum. That is interesting stuff. I had never heard of that before. Says
> > a lot about our culture - perception versus reality and all that.
> >
> What is this reality you speak of Keith??
>
>
>

I'm not sure, but I'll know it when I see it.

--
Keith

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:42:46 -0400, d wells wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:26:44 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>diminutive waistline.
>>
>>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>>board.
>>
>>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>>with elasticated waistbands.
>>
>>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>>to the garments stretching facilities.
>>
>>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>have a waist size of 32".
>>
>><VBG>
>
>It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
>John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here. But ...
>
>I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
>been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
>while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
>I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)
>
>Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
>and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
>new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
>were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
>sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
>about themselves.
>
>I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
>only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
>manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
>all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
>a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
>wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
>barracks.
>
>I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
>back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
>clothing.
>
>So. I'm in 34" jeans. What I don't know is if I'm about the same size
>as I was in college. (I weighed 222 this morning ... I guess I'm close
>... unless, of course, my scale is providing Vanity Weighing.)

Thank you for relating your theory on waist vis-à-vis trouser sizes.

However, those of us who have known John Williams for a long time,
know that like most of us, he has had a much slimmer waistline at
certain times in his life. It was the reason he took up bodybuilding
in the first place, as an overweight 40 year old.

However, not so long ago he owned up to having bloated up by three
stone (42 lbs). Sightings of him in images he has volunteered to the
Group indicate even to the not too experienced eye, that he is now
very 'heavy'.

There is no way he is waist size 32" at his moment.

On 26 Oct 2006 11:51:27 -0700, "JMW" <jmwilliams_56@yahoo.com> wrote:

>d wrote:
>> Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>> >diminutive waistline.
>> >
>> >I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>> >amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>> >outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>> >whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>> >board.
>> >
>> >One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>> >solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>> >middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>> >with elasticated waistbands.
>> >
>> >Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>> >capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>> >to the garments stretching facilities.
>> >
>> >Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>> >the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>> >have a waist size of 32".
>> >
>> ><VBG>
>>
>> It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
>> John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here. But ...
>>
>> I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
>> been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
>> while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
>> I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)
>>
>> Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
>> and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
>> new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
>> were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
>> sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
>> about themselves.
>>
>> I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
>> only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
>> manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
>> all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
>> a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
>> wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
>> barracks.
>>
>> I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
>> back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
>> clothing.
>
>Since my the 32x34 jeans I bought a few weeks ago were Lee brand, I
>decided to do an actual measurement. The "tale of the tape" as 34.25
>inches. So I guess there is some truth to that. However, it's not the
>eight inches that John "Chubby Charles" Hudson was fantasizing about.

It is obvious that John "Fatboy" Williams is beginning to retract, but
he is still bullshitting like mad, and we all know he is desperately
trying to retrieve the situation.

Watch my lips John Boy:

YOU ARE WEARING OLD FAT MAN ELASTICATED WAIST TROUSERS!

Suck it up and live with it John "Beer Barrel not a Six Pack"
Williams! ;o)

Better you didn't dig these fucking great holes for yourself in the
first place Fat Boy! ;o)

I'll bet when you suck in your spreading gut, your great fat arse
bounces off the floor!!

It's almost time for another BAWAHAHA... but not quite... ;o)

d wrote:
[...]

> It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
> John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here.

heh

I, however, can't say the same, but I do admire your sense of fairplay
or "not-taking-sides-edness"... er, impartiality? Yes.

> But ...
>
> I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
> been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
> while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
> I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)
>
> Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
> and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
> new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
> were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
> sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
> about themselves.
>
> I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
> only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
> manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
> all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
> a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
> wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
> barracks.
>
> I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
> back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
> clothing.

As I mentioned elsewhere in MFW, I worked retail for American Eagle -
http://ae.com/ - and was amazed at the wildly varying size differences
in their jeans, mens and womens. There was really no way for a parent
to visit the store with their child's size and pick out the
correctly-fitting jeans. No way.

> So. I'm in 34" jeans. What I don't know is if I'm about the same size
> as I was in college. (I weighed 222 this morning ... I guess I'm close
> ... unless, of course, my scale is providing Vanity Weighing.)

heh )

--
Curt

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:42:46 -0400, d wells wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:26:44 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>diminutive waistline.
>>
>>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>>board.
>>
>>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>>with elasticated waistbands.
>>
>>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>>to the garments stretching facilities.
>>
>>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>have a waist size of 32".
>>
>><VBG>
>
>It is not my intention to get involved in any type of dispute between
>John and you. That is, I'm not taking sides here. But ...
>
>I recently dropped down to 34-inch jeans. Which is as small as I've
>been in almost 20 years. Back in '86 I think I was in 33s for a
>while. I probably weighed 210 to 215, and I was a runner. I can't say
>I had a lot going on muscle-wise (not that I do, now, either.)
>
>Anyway, not long ago I was reading postings on an Australian website
>and a gal there was miffed as she'd gone to the store and purchased
>new jeans. The same size and make as the year before but, now, they
>were too big on her. She did some research and found out about vanity
>sizing -- that whole making clothes larger thing so people feel better
>about themselves.
>
>I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
>only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
>manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
>all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
>a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
>wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
>barracks.
>
>I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
>back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
>clothing.
>
>So. I'm in 34" jeans. What I don't know is if I'm about the same size
>as I was in college. (I weighed 222 this morning ... I guess I'm close
>... unless, of course, my scale is providing Vanity Weighing.)

Um, grab ye olde tape measure and see if the jeans are in fact 34
inches around?

--
Is this thing on?

Hobbes wrote:
> In article <I8WdnQpirM4JmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Hobbes" wrote
>>>
>>> Dayum. That is interesting stuff. I had never heard of that before.
>>> Says a lot about our culture - perception versus reality and all
>>> that.
>>>
>> What is this reality you speak of Keith??
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure, but I'll know it when I see it.

You can't *see* reality, you can only smell it and taste it.

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

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

Charles wrote:

>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>diminutive waistline.
>
>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>board.
>
>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>with elasticated waistbands.
>
>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>to the garments stretching facilities.
>
>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>have a waist size of 32".
>
><VBG>
>
>
>
A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie? You
are a fucking moron.

--
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

Robert Schuh wrote:
[...]
> You are a fucking moron.

Nail, head, hit.


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

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

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:11:36 +0100, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Hobbes wrote:
>> In article <I8WdnQpirM4JmdzYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Hobbes" wrote
>>>>
>>>> Dayum. That is interesting stuff. I had never heard of that before.
>>>> Says a lot about our culture - perception versus reality and all
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>> What is this reality you speak of Keith??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure, but I'll know it when I see it.
>
>You can't *see* reality, you can only smell it and taste it.

That sounds like you with your head up Williams arse again!

Da dah - Neil Simpson is officially assimilated into official MFW
society at the same grade and ability level as the idiot Michaels!

Have a great weekend Bully Boy - you know I intend to! ;o)

TFIF!

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>
>>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>diminutive waistline.
>>
>>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>>board.
>>
>>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>>with elasticated waistbands.
>>
>>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>>to the garments stretching facilities.
>>
>>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>have a waist size of 32".
>>
>><VBG>
>>
>>
>>
>A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie? You
>are a fucking moron.
>

And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.

Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you! ;o)

For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not small. For a
vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32" waist is like
the voices in his head - NOT REAL!

Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous video
he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!

Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all the
trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is obviously
room for error. This is particularly true if you were bullshitting in
the first place.

You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!! ;o)

Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I intend
to! ;o)

TFIF!

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:34:21 GMT, Joe Humble <joehumble@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:42:46 -0400, d wells wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:26:44 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams

<snipped stuff>

>>I did some research and thought I'd found that vanity sizing affected
>>only women. Men's clothing was was more uniform in size across
>>manufacturers due to the need to sometimes collect a bunch of us up
>>all at once and send us off to war. The army wanted to be sure that if
>>a guy needed a 34/34 that it would be an honest 34/34 and there
>>wouldn't be a lot of 'does this make my ass look big' going on in the
>>barracks.
>>
>>I eventually sent a e-mail off to Lee jeans. Their PR department shot
>>back an e-mail that said vanity sizing does, indeed, apply to men's
>>clothing.
>>
>>So. I'm in 34" jeans. What I don't know is if I'm about the same size
>>as I was in college. (I weighed 222 this morning ... I guess I'm close
>>... unless, of course, my scale is providing Vanity Weighing.)
>
>Um, grab ye olde tape measure and see if the jeans are in fact 34
>inches around?

I don't know that the 34's of 20 years ago were 34 inches round.

My gut tells me that the pants I'm currently in are 34s.

I'm pretty much as thin as I care to be right now. Though lately, I've
been reading about bulking and wonder if I shouldn't get a bit smaller
so I have room for some fat when I increase my calories.

(In case anybody missed it ... get it? "my gut tells me." It's Friday
afternoon, some of you guys might be in a post-work-week fog. I'm just
trying to keep you alert.)

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:28:35 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:
>
>And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.

Nail, head, hit.

"John Hanson" <jhanson@northernlinks.com> wrote in message
news:ndt4k2dj8s78sbi32t4pnl74rp7vsjjpld@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:28:35 +0100, Charles <jrh@msn.com> wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>>two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>>sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>
> Nail, head, hit.

I'm sorry, Pusbag already drove that nail:

an
unemployed, social security
disability receiving, soul-less,
white, Miles Davis jerking-off-to,
sickly, withered, aged-beyond-his-years,
diseased, stomach bleeding,
hypertensive, shriveled,
scarred, limp-dicked, Tribex using,
balding, Vulcan earred, Donny Osmond-looking,
fanny pack wearing, Weird Al Yankovic photo
posing, drug-addict,
multiple convicted felon, drug
couriering Torbjorn Akerfeldt Stooge,
pathetic-desperate-prescription-forging,
Valium-quaffling-sleeping-all-day,
Mike Massey bitch slapped, Nicole
Bass spanked, near death loser.

--
PB

Charles wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Charles wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>>diminutive waistline.
>>>
>>>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>>>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>>>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>>>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>>>board.
>>>
>>>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>>>with elasticated waistbands.
>>>
>>>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>>>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>>>to the garments stretching facilities.
>>>
>>>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>>have a waist size of 32".
>>>
>>><VBG>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie? You
>>are a fucking moron.
>>
>>
>>
>
>And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>
>Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you! ;o)
>
>For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not small. For a
>vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32" waist is like
>the voices in his head - NOT REAL!
>
>Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous video
>he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!
>
>Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all the
>trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is obviously
>room for error. This is particularly true if you were bullshitting in
>the first place.
>
>You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!! ;o)
>
>Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I intend
>to! ;o)
>
>TFIF!
>
>
Why don't you just address the issue instead of your inept attempt at
humor? So I am "emaciated?" I am actually back to 200 lbs, so I am far
from emaciated. How many bodybuilding contests have you won? Let's face
it, you are just a juvenile troll who probably does not even work out. I
will bet too that you can't even squat with 225 on your back. I would
also LOVE to know where people can buy pants that go my the quarter
size. BTW, I never claimed that my waist was 28". It was actually 27
when I won the Mr. Phoenix in 1988. Look at the black and white photo in
the middle. Here are the photos. http://www.rustyiron.net/rschuh.htm.
Where are yours????

--
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

Robert Schuh wrote:

> Charles wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>>> diminutive waistline.
>>>>
>>>> I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>>>> amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>>>> outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>>>> whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>>>> board.
>>>>
>>>> One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>>> solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>>> middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>>>> with elasticated waistbands.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>>>> capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>>>> to the garments stretching facilities.
>>>>
>>>> Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>>> the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>>> have a waist size of 32".
>>>>
>>>> <VBG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie?
>>> You are a fucking moron.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>> two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>> sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>>
>> Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you! ;o)
>>
>> For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not small. For a
>> vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32" waist is like
>> the voices in his head - NOT REAL!
>>
>> Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous video
>> he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!
>>
>> Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all the
>> trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is obviously
>> room for error. This is particularly true if you were bullshitting in
>> the first place.
>>
>> You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!! ;o)
>>
>> Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I intend
>> to! ;o)
>>
>> TFIF!
>>
>>
> Why don't you just address the issue instead of your inept attempt at
> humor? So I am "emaciated?" I am actually back to 200 lbs, so I am far
> from emaciated. How many bodybuilding contests have you won? Let's
> face it, you are just a juvenile troll who probably does not even work
> out. I will bet too that you can't even squat with 225 on your back. I
> would also LOVE to know where people can buy pants that go my the
> quarter size. BTW, I never claimed that my waist was 28". It was
> actually 27 when I won the Mr. Phoenix in 1988. Look at the black and
> white photo in the middle. Here are the photos.
> http://www.rustyiron.net/rschuh.htm. Where are yours????
>

I meant to write that I never claimed that my waist was 26", not 28". It
has been 28 on many occasions.

--
--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:58:25 -0700, Robert Schuh
<rob@robschuhpolycock.com> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>>>diminutive waistline.
>>>>
>>>>I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the wonderfully
>>>>amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is the
>>>>outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist" Williams,
>>>>whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing Pool's cork
>>>>board.
>>>>
>>>>One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>>>solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>>>middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy trousers
>>>>with elasticated waistbands.
>>>>
>>>>Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built in
>>>>capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches larger, due
>>>>to the garments stretching facilities.
>>>>
>>>>Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>>>the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>>>have a waist size of 32".
>>>>
>>>><VBG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie? You
>>>are a fucking moron.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>>two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>>sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>>
>>Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you! ;o)
>>
>>For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not small. For a
>>vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32" waist is like
>>the voices in his head - NOT REAL!
>>
>>Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous video
>>he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!
>>
>>Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all the
>>trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is obviously
>>room for error. This is particularly true if you were bullshitting in
>>the first place.
>>
>>You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!! ;o)
>>
>>Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I intend
>>to! ;o)
>>
>>TFIF!
>>
>>
>Why don't you just address the issue instead of your inept attempt at
>humor? So I am "emaciated?"

You 'potty mouthed' me and I got ya back in spades buddy boy - seems
fair to me! ;o)

>I am actually back to 200 lbs, so I am far
>from emaciated.

You have made a good recovery, well done!

>How many bodybuilding contests have you won?

Eeeewwww...

>Let's face it, you are just a juvenile troll

I've haven't been described as a juvenile for a very long time...

>who probably does not even work out.

I do so too, so yah booh to you Robbbie Shoo you horrid little boy!
;o)

>I will bet too that you can't even squat with 225 on your back.

I neither confirm or deny that silly statement; boasting about
personal performance and lifting abilities is for vainglorious idiots.

I workout purely to keep fit and improve levels of strength and
mobility.

>I would also LOVE to know where people can buy pants that go my the quarter
>size.

You must ask John "Fatboy Williams" as it was he that introduced the
description. I merely repeated his idiocy.

I've got no quarrel with you Rob, in fact as I have said before I
quite enjoy your manic rants, so fuck off and vent your spleen on
someone more deserving - there are quite a few such souls about.

Have a great weekend mate - I am! ;o)

Robert Schuh wrote:
> Charles wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>>> diminutive waistline.
>>>>
>>>> I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the
>>>> wonderfully amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is
>>>> the outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist"
>>>> Williams, whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing
>>>> Pool's cork board.
>>>>
>>>> One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>>> solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>>> middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy
>>>> trousers with elasticated waistbands.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built
>>>> in capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches
>>>> larger, due to the garments stretching facilities.
>>>>
>>>> Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>>> the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>>> have a waist size of 32".
>>>>
>>>> <VBG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie?
>>> You are a fucking moron.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>> two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>> sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>>
>> Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you!
>> ;o) For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not small. For a
>> vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32" waist is like
>> the voices in his head - NOT REAL!
>>
>> Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous
>> video he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!
>>
>> Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all
>> the trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is
>> obviously room for error. This is particularly true if you were
>> bullshitting in the first place.
>>
>> You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!! ;o)
>>
>> Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I intend
>> to! ;o)
>>
>> TFIF!
>>
>>
> Why don't you just address the issue instead of your inept attempt at
> humor? So I am "emaciated?" I am actually back to 200 lbs, so I am far
> from emaciated. How many bodybuilding contests have you won? Let's
> face it, you are just a juvenile troll who probably does not even
> work out. I will bet too that you can't even squat with 225 on your
> back. I would also LOVE to know where people can buy pants that go my
> the quarter size. BTW, I never claimed that my waist was 28". It was
> actually 27 when I won the Mr. Phoenix in 1988. Look at the black and
> white photo in the middle. Here are the photos.
> http://www.rustyiron.net/rschuh.htm. Where are yours????
>
> --

Rob, show some respect -- this is old John Hudson you are addressing [MFW's
token senior].

--
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 Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:15:02 +0100, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
wrote:

>Robert Schuh wrote:
>> Charles wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>>>> diminutive waistline.
>>>>>
>>>>> I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the
>>>>> wonderfully amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites is
>>>>> the outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch Waist"
>>>>> Williams, whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on the Typing
>>>>> Pool's cork board.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>>>> solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>>>> middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy
>>>>> trousers with elasticated waistbands.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built
>>>>> in capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches
>>>>> larger, due to the garments stretching facilities.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that "all
>>>>> the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought this month,
>>>>> have a waist size of 32".
>>>>>
>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie?
>>>> You are a fucking moron.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>>> two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>>> sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>>>
>>> Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you!
>>> ;o) For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not small. For a
>>> vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32" waist is like
>>> the voices in his head - NOT REAL!
>>>
>>> Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous
>>> video he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!
>>>
>>> Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all
>>> the trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is
>>> obviously room for error. This is particularly true if you were
>>> bullshitting in the first place.
>>>
>>> You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!! ;o)
>>>
>>> Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I intend
>>> to! ;o)
>>>
>>> TFIF!
>>>
>>>
>> Why don't you just address the issue instead of your inept attempt at
>> humor? So I am "emaciated?" I am actually back to 200 lbs, so I am far
>> from emaciated. How many bodybuilding contests have you won? Let's
>> face it, you are just a juvenile troll who probably does not even
>> work out. I will bet too that you can't even squat with 225 on your
>> back. I would also LOVE to know where people can buy pants that go my
>> the quarter size. BTW, I never claimed that my waist was 28". It was
>> actually 27 when I won the Mr. Phoenix in 1988. Look at the black and
>> white photo in the middle. Here are the photos.
>> http://www.rustyiron.net/rschuh.htm. Where are yours????
>>
>> --
>
>Rob, show some respect -- this is old John Hudson you are addressing [MFW's
>token senior].

Quite so Neil "Bully Boy" Simpson, well said my boy.

Let's have a little respect for the 'elders' (better known as
Alickadoos in rugby circles).

However, all this brown-nosing Neil will not let you off the hook. If
you fuck up I'm still going to be on you like a ton of bricks.

You late middle-aged fatties must try and set a good example. ;o)

HAGW!

Charles wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:15:02 +0100, "Bully" <bully1@proteinbars.co.ok>
> wrote:
>
>> Robert Schuh wrote:
>>> Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:15:17 -0700, Robert Schuh <rob@robschuh.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Charles wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have solved the mystery of John "Beat you Senseless" Williams
>>>>>> diminutive waistline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I quite frequently share with some colleagues at work, the
>>>>>> wonderfully amusing 'goings-on' at MFW. One of their favourites
>>>>>> is the outrageously (if unintentionally) funny John "32 Inch
>>>>>> Waist" Williams, whose dopey .jpeg still has pride of place on
>>>>>> the Typing Pool's cork board.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One of my American colleagues immediately put his finger on the
>>>>>> solution. Apparently, many Americans, male and female, as the
>>>>>> middle-aged spread begins to take its toll, are able to buy
>>>>>> trousers with elasticated waistbands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, if they buy a pair of size 32" trousers, there is the built
>>>>>> in capacity to accommodate a girth of up to some eight inches
>>>>>> larger, due to the garments stretching facilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mystery solved chaps and chappesses. I am happy to accept that
>>>>>> "all the trousers that John "Serial Stalker" Williams bought
>>>>>> this month, have a waist size of 32".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> A 32" waist is not that small, so why would you think it is a lie?
>>>>> You are a fucking moron.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And you are a stuffed up, fucked up, never come down, no good,
>>>> two-timing, lazy louse-bound, rotten filthy, bollock brained, cock
>>>> sucking, mother fucking bastard of a shit house ranger.
>>>>
>>>> Good morning Rob, it's always nice to swap banal insults with you!
>>>> ;o) For an emaciated fuck like you matey, a 26" waist is not
>>>> small. For a vain, bloated fuck like John "Fatboy" Williams, a 32"
>>>> waist is like
>>>> the voices in his head - NOT REAL!
>>>>
>>>> Did you see the size of the vainglorious fuck in that ridiculous
>>>> video he posted of him deadlifting? I rest my case: your witness!
>>>>
>>>> Given that he has already walked back and since admitted that "all
>>>> the trousers he bought this month" are now 34.25", then there is
>>>> obviously room for error. This is particularly true if you were
>>>> bullshitting in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> You can give some people and inch and they want a yard (or 8")!!
>>>> ;o)
>>>>
>>>> Fuck you very much Sir, and have a great weekend - you know I
>>>> intend
>>>> to! ;o)
>>>>
>>>> TFIF!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Why don't you just address the issue instead of your inept attempt
>>> at humor? So I am "emaciated?" I am actually back to 200 lbs, so I
>>> am far from emaciated. How many bodybuilding contests have you won?
>>> Let's face it, you are just a juvenile troll who probably does not
>>> even work out. I will bet too that you can't even squat with 225 on
>>> your back. I would also LOVE to know where people can buy pants
>>> that go my the quarter size. BTW, I never claimed that my waist was
>>> 28". It was actually 27 when I won the Mr. Phoenix in 1988. Look at
>>> the black and white photo in the middle. Here are the photos.
>>> http://www.rustyiron.net/rschuh.htm. Where are yours????
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Rob, show some respect -- this is old John Hudson you are addressing
>> [MFW's token senior].
>
> Quite so Neil "Bully Boy" Simpson, well said my boy.
>
> Let's have a little respect for the 'elders' (better known as
> Alickadoos in rugby circles).

Bollocks. They're Old Farts as you well know.

>
> However, all this brown-nosing Neil will not let you off the hook. If
> you fuck up I'm still going to be on you like a ton of bricks.

Ah, the slap with the wet hankie.

>
> You late middle-aged fatties must try and set a good example. ;o)


--
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