t-and-f: Re: Proof positive....
At 05:20 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote: Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy "There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing." Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words in this thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" messages you refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a ludicrous defence and calling for someone's head without due process are 2 completely different things. I've engaged in the former but certainly not in the latter. Can't think of anyone who has. Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no less, that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. RMc Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy From: B. Kunnath Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:06:37 + This whole drug debate is like flogging a dead horse. People on drugs find ways (and sympathizers) to get off the charges. People who arent on drugs are susupected of doping, rightly or wrongly. Remember, this is their JOB. Its not a game or a hobby. Think for a second that you are in the World Champs. Would you risk not putting down every single pill your popping from Aspirin to modafinil? Esp if you had been busted once before? Yes even soy just in case they suspect you off having too much protein! I know I would, I'd have too much to lose...like my paycheck. Its got to be clean cut: if you're busted, like White, Jerome Young etc, you've got to go. NO EXCUSES, NO SYMPATHY. If you're not, play on until you get caught. And if they havent been caught its absolutely meaningless to come here or anywhere else spreading rumors about it. Its a waste of time. Why? Because its hard enough getting a conviction. By the way, who was the last athlete to get busted and admit to it? Finally, if watching grown men getting into a hissy fit is your idea of entertainment, Im sure Drummond will be around to keep you happy. bob Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy From: Jonas Mureika Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:23:29 -0700 On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Richard McCann wrote: > There's a reason for the statement "innocent until proven guilty": ... in a court of law! *That* is the real application of this statement (and even that backfires, or the letters OJ wouldn't resonate in our minds). This point aside, however, they *are* guilty of having a substance in their system which is not supposed to be there according to the rules of competition. > Your statement that if someone is "busted" then they are guilty, with > NO hearings or procedures to determine if (1) the testing procedures > was faulty (i.e., false positives, which are extremely common in > medical testing) Don't forget that there are *two* samples which are tested. This redundancy is to reduce the chance of false positives. It does not eliminate them, but it does reduce the probability of an erroneous result. > Second, no one, I repeat, NO ONE, is able to record absolutely every event > or influence in their life. For example, I suspect that ALL of us have > mistakes in our tax returns, ... A more appropriate tax analogy: suppose we were required to file on January 1st, and on Dec 31st you won the lottery. If you fail to claim this income on your return, then it's probably not an accident. When an athlete has taken medication immediately prior to running -- and the medication has *enabled* the athlete to compete in lieu of succumbing to their medical condition -- you have to question how they could possibly forget to note it on the testing form. > You're implying that White should have gone so far as record > absolutely everything that she ingested--where does she make the > cutoff as to what to report? She may not have realized that the drug > had some type of stimulant. > See my comment above. Also, how can something that combats narcolepsy *not* be a stimulant? It certainly isn't a depressant. Some claim that modafinil is this a class of wonder-drug termed "eugeroic", but a quick check of the standard journals (JAMA, NEJM) and the National Library of Medicine/NIH reveals *no* such term in the database. It does, however, reveal quite clearly that the drug in question is a CNS stimulant. --JRM
t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....
Are you freakin nuts or what? 1) The B Kunneth post does NOT say anything about banishment without a hearing. FAILED 2) The Jonas Mureika post: You've spliced to posts together, so who can tell who posted what or in what context? WHO KNOWS? So far, what you posted tonight doesn't prove anything. In fact, it appears that Jonas is saying that it is YOU WHO SAID something about guilt and no hearings, which makes your tautalogical lunacy even more difficult to decipher. Given your record of mendacity here, you're going to have to do better. If you can find Jonas' original post and put it up UNREDACTED, the hours you've wasted might show for once you can tell the truth. I don't suspect that your are unable to show us one post where someone has said that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. WELL, WE'RE WAITING? -Judge Smails malmo -Original Message- From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:21 PM To: T&FMail List Cc: Martin J. Dixon; George Malley Subject: Re: Proof positive At 05:20 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote: >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 >From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > >"There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned >immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing." > >Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words in >this thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" >messages you refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a >ludicrous defence and calling for someone's head without due process >are 2 completely different things. I've engaged in the former but >certainly not in the latter. Can't think of anyone who has. Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no less, that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. RMc Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy From: B. Kunnath Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:06:37 + This whole drug debate is like flogging a dead horse. People on drugs find ways (and sympathizers) to get off the charges. People who arent on drugs are susupected of doping, rightly or wrongly. Remember, this is their JOB. Its not a game or a hobby. Think for a second that you are in the World Champs. Would you risk not putting down every single pill your popping from Aspirin to modafinil? Esp if you had been busted once before? Yes even soy just in case they suspect you off having too much protein! I know I would, I'd have too much to lose...like my paycheck. Its got to be clean cut: if you're busted, like White, Jerome Young etc, you've got to go. NO EXCUSES, NO SYMPATHY. If you're not, play on until you get caught. And if they havent been caught its absolutely meaningless to come here or anywhere else spreading rumors about it. Its a waste of time. Why? Because its hard enough getting a conviction. By the way, who was the last athlete to get busted and admit to it? Finally, if watching grown men getting into a hissy fit is your idea of entertainment, Im sure Drummond will be around to keep you happy. bob Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy From: Jonas Mureika Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:23:29 -0700 On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Richard McCann wrote: > There's a reason for the statement "innocent until proven guilty": ... in a court of law! *That* is the real application of this statement (and even that backfires, or the letters OJ wouldn't resonate in our minds). This point aside, however, they *are* guilty of having a substance in their system which is not supposed to be there according to the rules of competition. > Your statement that if someone is "busted" then they are guilty, with > NO hearings or procedures to determine if (1) the testing procedures > was faulty (i.e., false positives, which are extremely common in > medical testing) Don't forget that there are *two* samples which are tested. This redundancy is to reduce the chance of false positives. It does not eliminate them, but it does reduce the probability of an erroneous result. > Second, no one, I repeat, NO ONE, is able to record absolutely every event > or influence in their life. For example, I suspect that ALL of us have > mistakes in our tax returns, ... A more appropriate tax analogy: suppose we were required to file on January 1st, and on Dec 31st you won the lottery. If you fail to claim this income on your return, then it's probably not an accident. When an athlete has taken medication immediately prior to running -- and the medication has *enabled* the athlete to comp
t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....
1) Neither of those posts said what you said. 2) Both Bob Kunnath and Jonas Mureika have repudiated your claims. Richard, a word of advice: reality is both much more rich and much more outrageous than anything tale you could possibly fabricate. Why not stay within the boundaries of reality when you debate? Even to the very end you continue with the drama queen persona. You're not the first Richard who proclaimed, "You won't have me to kick around anymore." Get help Richard. malmo -Original Message- From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:44 PM To: malmo Cc: 'T&FMail List'; 'Martin J. Dixon' Subject: RE: Proof positive I'm sorry that you're illiterate. But since I don't have to actually listen to your rants and riffs anymore, a la Rush Limbaugh (whom I'm sure you worship), I don't care. I knew that you would come up with some lame excuse of why these posts don't actually say what they say. Sorry that you're in such a state of denial. Maybe you need to join AA as someone else suggested earlier. RMc At 08:25 PM 10/30/2003 -0500, malmo wrote: >Are you freakin nuts or what? > >1) The B Kunneth post does NOT say anything about banishment without a >hearing. FAILED Sorry, but it says if busted, then outta here. That means only one thing--no hearing, act solely on the evidence. No other interpretation possible. BTW, the rest of the exchange that you missed earlier actually revolved in detail around that point. I suggest that you actually research what was said in a thread before you shoot off again. >2) The Jonas Mureika post: You've spliced to posts together, so who can >tell who posted what or in what context? I copied the extract DIRECTLY from the mail listserve archive, no editing. Take a look yourself. Sorry that you can't accept evidence presented to you as a whole. >WHO KNOWS? So far, what you >posted tonight doesn't prove anything. In fact, it appears that Jonas >is saying that it is YOU WHO SAID something about guilt and no >hearings, which makes your tautalogical lunacy even more difficult to >decipher. > >Given your record of mendacity here, you're going to have to do better. >If you can find Jonas' original post and put it up UNREDACTED, the >hours you've wasted might show for once you can tell the truth. I think it's pretty clear who's record here actually is honorable and complete. Sorry that you can't face yourself in the mirror in the morning. Bye, RMc >I don't suspect that your are unable to show us one post where someone >has said that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > >WELL, WE'RE WAITING? -Judge Smails > >malmo > > >-Original Message- >From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:21 PM >To: T&FMail List >Cc: Martin J. Dixon; George Malley >Subject: Re: Proof positive > > >At 05:20 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote: > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 > >From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > > > >"There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned > >immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing." > > > >Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words > >in this thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" > >messages you refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a > >ludicrous defence and calling for someone's head without due process > >are 2 completely different things. I've engaged in the former but > >certainly not in the latter. Can't think of anyone who has. > >Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no >less, that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > >RMc > > > >Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > >From: B. Kunnath >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy >Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:06:37 + > >--- >- > > >This whole drug debate is like flogging a dead horse. > > People on drugs find ways (and sympathizers) to get off the charges. >People who arent on drugs are susupected of doping, rightly or wrongly. > > Remember, this is their JOB. Its not a game or a hobby. > > Think for a second that you are in the World Champs. Would you risk >not putting down every single pill your popping from Aspirin to >modafinil? Esp >if you had been busted once before? Yes even soy just in case they >suspect >you off having too much protein! I know I would, I'd have too much to >lose...like my paycheck. > >Its got to be clean cut: if you're busted, like White, Jerome Young >etc, you've got to go. NO EXCUSES, NO SYMPATHY. > > If you're not, play on until you get caught. > > And if they havent been caught its absolutely meaningless to come >here or anywhere else spreading rumors about it. Its a waste of time. >Why? Because >its hard enough getting a conviction. >
Re: t-and-f: Re: Proof positive....
Nowhere in either of those posts did they say the word banned. Putting words in Bob's mouth here but I think we can all agree that the old process was flawed. In addition, how do you know when he said "busted", he didn't mean after all proper procedures have been followed. Jonas certainly doesn't have a problem with due process. He just has a problem with applying domestic laws to international sporting rules. He didn't call for banning anyone either and I know he would want all appropriate procedures followed. We are laughing at these people and their ridiculous excuses. We have a right to do that. Please don't accuse those with a sense of humour of being a lynch mob. You have no idea what is in their heads and couldn't prove it anyway. You're making assumptions about people which is the very thing you seem to have a problem with. Richard McCann wrote: > At 05:20 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote: > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 > >From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > > > >"There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned > >immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing." > > > >Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words in this > >thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" messages you > >refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a ludicrous defence and > >calling for someone's head without due process are 2 completely different > >things. I've engaged in the former but certainly not in the latter. Can't > >think of anyone who has. > > Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no less, > that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > > RMc >
Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....
The Smail's kid picks his nose! You'll get nothing Malmo and LIKE IT! -- - Original Message - DATE: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 20:25:07 From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Richard McCann'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"'T&FMail List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Martin J. Dixon'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Are you freakin nuts or what? > >1) The B Kunneth post does NOT say anything about banishment without a >hearing. FAILED > >2) The Jonas Mureika post: You've spliced to posts together, so who can >tell who posted what or in what context? WHO KNOWS? So far, what you >posted tonight doesn't prove anything. In fact, it appears that Jonas is >saying that it is YOU WHO SAID something about guilt and no hearings, >which makes your tautalogical lunacy even more difficult to decipher. > >Given your record of mendacity here, you're going to have to do better. >If you can find Jonas' original post and put it up UNREDACTED, the hours >you've wasted might show for once you can tell the truth. > >I don't suspect that your are unable to show us one post where someone >has said that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > >WELL, WE'RE WAITING? -Judge Smails > >malmo > > >-Original Message- >From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:21 PM >To: T&FMail List >Cc: Martin J. Dixon; George Malley >Subject: Re: Proof positive > > >At 05:20 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote: >>Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 >>From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy >> >>"There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned >>immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing." >> >>Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words in >>this thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" >>messages you refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a >>ludicrous defence and calling for someone's head without due process >>are 2 completely different things. I've engaged in the former but >>certainly not in the latter. Can't think of anyone who has. > >Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no >less, >that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > >RMc > > > >Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > >From: B. Kunnath >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy >Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:06:37 + > > > > >This whole drug debate is like flogging a dead horse. > > People on drugs find ways (and sympathizers) to get off the charges. >People who arent on drugs are susupected of doping, rightly or wrongly. > > Remember, this is their JOB. Its not a game or a hobby. > > Think for a second that you are in the World Champs. Would you risk >not >putting down every single pill your popping from Aspirin to modafinil? >Esp >if you had been busted once before? Yes even soy just in case they >suspect >you off having too much protein! I know I would, I'd have too much to >lose...like my paycheck. > > Its got to be clean cut: if you're busted, like White, Jerome Young >etc, >you've got to go. NO EXCUSES, NO SYMPATHY. > > If you're not, play on until you get caught. > > And if they havent been caught its absolutely meaningless to come here >or >anywhere else spreading rumors about it. Its a waste of time. Why? >Because >its hard enough getting a conviction. > >By the way, who was the last athlete to get busted and admit to it? > >Finally, if watching grown men getting into a hissy fit is your idea of >entertainment, Im sure Drummond will be around to keep you happy. > >bob > >Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > > > > >From: Jonas Mureika >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy >Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2003 19:23:29 -0700 > > > > >On Thu, 4 Sep 2003, Richard McCann wrote: > > > There's a reason for the statement "innocent until proven guilty": > >... in a court of law! *That* is the real application of this statement >(and even that backfires, or the letters OJ wouldn't resonate in our >minds). > >This point aside, however, they *are* guilty of having a substance in >their system which is not supposed to be there according to the rules of >competition. > > > Your statement that if someone is "busted" then they are guilty, >with > NO hearings or procedures to determine if (1) the testing >procedures > was faulty (i.e., false positives, which are extremely >common in > medical testing) > >Don't forget that there are *two* samples which are tested. This >redundancy is to reduce the chance of false positives. It does not >eliminate them, but it does reduce the probability of an erroneous >result. > > > Second, no one, I repeat, NO ONE, is able to record absolutely every >event
Re: t-and-f: Re: Proof positive....
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Richard McCann wrote: > Below is but two examples of statement made here, in this thread no less, > that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > Excuse me, but I did not say anything about banning athletes without a hearing. The only thing in that post which says anything remotely like that is the POST I WAS QUOTING, which was not mine (in fact, it was yours). Please do not attribute statements to me that I did not make. --JRM
t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
RICHARD MCCANN: None shall pass. MALMO: What? RICHARD MCCANN: None shall pass. MALMO: I have no quarrel with you, good Sir Knight, but I must cross this bridge. RICHARD MCCANN: Then you shall die. MALMO: I command you, as King of the Britons, to stand aside! RICHARD MCCANN: I move for no man. MALMO: So be it! MALMO and RICHARD MCCANN: Aaah!, hiyaah!, etc. [MALMO chops the RICHARD MCCANN's left arm off] MALMO: Now stand aside, worthy adversary. RICHARD MCCANN: 'Tis but a scratch. MALMO: A scratch? Your arm's off! RICHARD MCCANN: No, it isn't. MALMO: Well, what's that, then? RICHARD MCCANN: I've had worse. MALMO: You liar! RICHARD MCCANN: Come on, you pansy! [clang] Huyah! [clang] Hiyaah! [clang] Aaaah! [MALMO chops the RICHARD MCCANN's right arm off] MALMO: Victory is mine! [kneeling] We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer-- RICHARD MCCANN: Hah! [kick] Come on, then. MALMO: What? RICHARD MCCANN: Have at you! [kick] MALMO: Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine. RICHARD MCCANN: Oh, had enough, eh? MALMO: Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left. RICHARD MCCANN: Yes, I have. MALMO: Look! RICHARD MCCANN: Just a flesh wound. [kick] MALMO: Look, stop that. RICHARD MCCANN: Chicken! [kick] Chickennn! MALMO: Look, I'll have your leg. [kick] Right! [whop] [MALMO chops the RICHARD MCCANN's right leg off] RICHARD MCCANN: Right. I'll do you for that! MALMO: You'll what? RICHARD MCCANN: Come here! MALMO: What are you going to do, bleed on me? RICHARD MCCANN: I'm invincible! MALMO: You're a looney. RICHARD MCCANN: The RICHARD MCCANN always triumphs! Have at you! Come on, then. [whop] [MALMO chops the RICHARD MCCANN's last leg off] RICHARD MCCANN: Oh? All right, we'll call it a draw. MALMO: Come, Patsy. RICHARD MCCANN: Oh. Oh, I see. Running away, eh? You yellow bastards! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off! -Original Message- From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 6:44 PM To: malmo Cc: 'T&FMail List'; 'Martin J. Dixon' Subject: RE: Proof positive I'm sorry that you're illiterate. But since I don't have to actually listen to your rants and riffs anymore, a la Rush Limbaugh (whom I'm sure you worship), I don't care. I knew that you would come up with some lame excuse of why these posts don't actually say what they say. Sorry that you're in such a state of denial. Maybe you need to join AA as someone else suggested earlier. RMc At 08:25 PM 10/30/2003 -0500, malmo wrote: >Are you freakin nuts or what? > >1) The B Kunneth post does NOT say anything about banishment without a >hearing. FAILED Sorry, but it says if busted, then outta here. That means only one thing--no hearing, act solely on the evidence. No other interpretation possible. BTW, the rest of the exchange that you missed earlier actually revolved in detail around that point. I suggest that you actually research what was said in a thread before you shoot off again. >2) The Jonas Mureika post: You've spliced to posts together, so who can >tell who posted what or in what context? I copied the extract DIRECTLY from the mail listserve archive, no editing. Take a look yourself. Sorry that you can't accept evidence presented to you as a whole. >WHO KNOWS? So far, what you >posted tonight doesn't prove anything. In fact, it appears that Jonas >is saying that it is YOU WHO SAID something about guilt and no >hearings, which makes your tautalogical lunacy even more difficult to >decipher. > >Given your record of mendacity here, you're going to have to do better. >If you can find Jonas' original post and put it up UNREDACTED, the >hours you've wasted might show for once you can tell the truth. I think it's pretty clear who's record here actually is honorable and complete. Sorry that you can't face yourself in the mirror in the morning. Bye, RMc >I don't suspect that your are unable to show us one post where someone >has said that athletes should be banned WITHOUT a hearing. > >WELL, WE'RE WAITING? -Judge Smails > >malmo > > >-Original Message- >From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:21 PM >To: T&FMail List >Cc: Martin J. Dixon; George Malley >Subject: Re: Proof positive > > >At 05:20 PM 10/29/2003 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote: > >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 13:19:19 -0500 > >From: "Martin J. Dixon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: t-and-f: Kelli White & narcolepsy > > > >"There have been innumerable calls for athletes to be banned > >immediately upon certification of the B test, WITHOUT a hearing." > > > >Absolute nonsense. Totally with malmo here. Show me the exact words > >in this thread where I said that. And show me one of the "numerous" > >messages you refer to where it was said by anyone. Laughing at a > >ludicrous defence and calling for someone's
Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
What I find hilarious about every instance when some of you guys fall for malmo's bait and the discussion starts to degrade, there is usually a reference to malmo's alleged use of some substance. Isn't that precisely what some of you guys are railing against? Can you spell hypocrisy... malmo wrote: > RICHARD MCCANN: > None shall pass.
Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
> there is usually a >reference to malmo's alleged use of some substance If memory serves me right as to darkwing list topics over the past few years, Malmo has admitted to a brief experimentation (which provided no discernable benefit according to Malmo) during his training days in Eugene MORE than two decades ago. There are probably people on this list who weren't even born then. But at this point it is quite ancient history, and I suspect that it has little if any relevance to the current narcolepsy / MLB home runs / Balco / Conte brouhaha. RT
Re: Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
Seems to me that far from suffering from narcolepsy Malmo is cursed by the opposite. He clearly can't sleep, judging by the length of the Monty Python pastiche. Either that or he spends far too long in front of the computer thinking up smart arse replies. Randall Northam On Saturday, Nov 1, 2003, at 16:47 Europe/London, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there is usually a reference to malmo's alleged use of some substance If memory serves me right as to darkwing list topics over the past few years, Malmo has admitted to a brief experimentation (which provided no discernable benefit according to Malmo) during his training days in Eugene MORE than two decades ago. There are probably people on this list who weren't even born then. But at this point it is quite ancient history, and I suspect that it has little if any relevance to the current narcolepsy / MLB home runs / Balco / Conte brouhaha. RT
Re: Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
Any 7 year old can find that Monty Python bit on google in about 47 seconds(that was me-a 7 year old would likely be faster). Couple of minutes with cut and paste and you're done. Randall Northam wrote: > Seems to me that far from suffering from narcolepsy Malmo is cursed by > the opposite. He clearly can't sleep, judging by the length of the > Monty Python pastiche. > Either that or he spends far too long in front of the computer thinking > up smart arse replies. > Randall Northam >
RE: Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positive....Monty Python silly
Since in order to connect to the internet one needs a computer. With a computer, software. With software, the magic of macros. And as the Frogs would say, "WALL-LA!" malmo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin J. Dixon Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 12:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Subject: Re: t-and-f: RE: Proof positiveMonty Python silly Any 7 year old can find that Monty Python bit on google in about 47 seconds(that was me-a 7 year old would likely be faster). Couple of minutes with cut and paste and you're done. Randall Northam wrote: > Seems to me that far from suffering from narcolepsy Malmo is cursed by > the opposite. He clearly can't sleep, judging by the length of the > Monty Python pastiche. Either that or he spends far too long in front > of the computer thinking up smart arse replies. > Randall Northam >
