Question on Isometric / Isotonic Exercises

It's called "beating off".

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

Lou Stein said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

You're confusing old-fashioned exercise terms with their actual
anatomical/physiological meanings. What you're talking about is an
isometric contraction; the fibers twitch to maintain a static force
without movement of the joint. In isotonic contractions, the fibers
collectively shorten (concentric) or lengthen (eccentric), moving the
joint against the load with either more force or less force than the
load.

In the type of isometric contraction you're describing, I think that
you will find that the load is created by the antagonist muscles. The
ability to keep the joint from moving is a matter of neuromuscular
proprioception.

It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with movement.

sid bonfire said:

It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with movement.

Uh, no. What the OP was describing, the so-called "flexing" of
muscles, involves no movement of the joint, right? Isokinetic
movement is an isotonic movement with a variable load that creates a
constant speed through the whole range of motion. It's essentially
impossible to achieve that with free weights; most isokinetic movement
is done with expensive gizmos often used in performance labs.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

"Sid Bonfire" replied:
"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
movement."

Maybe I'll learn something here.

I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.

I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm

Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

"Sid Bonfire" replied:
"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
movement."

Maybe I'll learn something here.

I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.

I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm

Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
informed answer?

BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
earlier response.

JMW said:

You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
informed answer?

The only troll here is JMW.

Quoted message said:

BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
earlier response.

You can fit what JMW knows about this into a thimble, and still get
your finger in.

JMW said:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

"Sid Bonfire" replied:
"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
movement."

Maybe I'll learn something here.

I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.

I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm

Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
informed answer?

BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
earlier response.

Sometimes a subject is interesting regardless of who's asking or
commenting. In such cases, I might get involved. I try not to forget
there's a bunch of lurkers out there as well as active posters who
have something interesting to contribute. I try to avoid pointless
name-calling for its own sake.

Your description of isokinetic movement neatly combines the
two descriptions I referenced. Thanks for that.

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
>
>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
>"flexing" ; )
>
>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
>
>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
>contraction.
>
>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
>
>Thanks,
>Lou Stein

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:
>
>Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
>show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
>object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
>muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
>"flexing" ; )
>
>Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
>range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
>Isotonic? Isokinetic?
>
>Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
>muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
>contraction.
>
>Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?
>
>Thanks,
>Lou Stein

"Sid Bonfire" replied:
"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
movement."

Maybe I'll learn something here.

I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.

I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm

Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
informed answer?

BTW, if you closely at the "two different descriptions" of isokinetic
movement, you will find that they describe the same thing. See my
earlier response.

Sometimes a subject is interesting regardless of who's asking or
commenting. In such cases, I might get involved. I try not to forget
there's a bunch of lurkers out there as well as active posters who
have something interesting to contribute. I try to avoid pointless
name-calling for its own sake.

How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

Quoted message said:

Your description of isokinetic movement neatly combines the
two descriptions I referenced. Thanks for that.

You're welcome for that.

JMW said:

How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
is wearing now.
4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
his/her intention.

This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.

Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
enough to return here

According to Wikipedia, through the success of the 1913 book
Pollyanna by Eleanor Porter, "the term 'pollyanna' entered the
language to describe someone who is cheerfully optimistic. It then
became by extension (and contrary to the spirit of the book) a
somewhat derogatory term for a naïve person who always expects people
to act decently, despite strong evidence to the contrary."

If I knew that "Lou Stein" was a troll, I wouldn't expect him
to act decently. I might respond anyway because this might
get informed non-trolls involved. If not, I'd quickly figure it out
and stop posting to that thread.

The whole effort in this NG to portray someone as a troll theme is
really lame and way overplayed. I could give a rat's ass who anyone
here thinks is a troll. I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
the time of day.

Quoted message said:

it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.

I'm here to prevent that, I'll be forever. Please allow me to
introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame WOO WOO

Quoted message said:

I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
the time of day.

What time is it?

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
is wearing now.
4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
his/her intention.

This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.

Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
enough to return here

According to Wikipedia, through the success of the 1913 book
Pollyanna by Eleanor Porter, "the term 'pollyanna' entered the
language to describe someone who is cheerfully optimistic. It then
became by extension (and contrary to the spirit of the book) a
somewhat derogatory term for a naïve person who always expects people
to act decently, despite strong evidence to the contrary."

If I knew that "Lou Stein" was a troll, I wouldn't expect him
to act decently. I might respond anyway because this might
get informed non-trolls involved. If not, I'd quickly figure it out
and stop posting to that thread.

The whole effort in this NG to portray someone as a troll theme is
really lame and way overplayed. I could give a rat's ass who anyone
here thinks is a troll. I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
the time of day.

Well thanks for the info guys. If I'm a troll then I'm a pretty lousy one
because the question wasn't really controversial, and I didn't respond to the
flame bait. I just knew this group had a bunch of steller knowledgable people
on it a few years ago. I'm really sorry to hear it's declined since then.
Maybe I'll need to find out where all the good people went.

FYI - I think the closest thing I'm looking for so far is Tai-Chi because that
has (can have) high tension movement. That's really my focus... any research
or system or philosophy of movement that incorporates high tension movements
where both a muscle and it's antagonist is contracting (regardless of whether
it's shortening or lengthening), along with any terminology that has been used
specifically to describe this situation.

Another reference I found is that Weider would flex his muscles while lifting
but I can't find that one right now maybe I'll dig it up later.

Regards,
Lou Stein

"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

JMW <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
informed answer?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sometimes a subject is interesting regardless of who's asking or
commenting. In such cases, I might get involved. I try not to forget
there's a bunch of lurkers out there as well as active posters who
have something interesting to contribute. I try to avoid pointless
name-calling for its own sake.

How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

I would probably dislike The Troll more, but he DOES have that Pinky
sidekick. I really like Pinky.

David

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
is wearing now.

You obviously don't read attributions to quotes, either. You were not
responding to Lou Stein. You were responding to "Sid Bonfire" aka
Bill Davidson. I have no reason to believe that Lou Stein is a troll,
nor did I ever imply that he was.

Quoted message said:

4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
his/her intention.

This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.

Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
enough to return here

[censored]. The exodus of most of the knowledgeable people can be
traced to a few bitter [censored] trolling them. That goes all the way
back to Dan Duchaine. I've been here ten years and watched it happen.

Quoted message said:

The whole effort in this NG to portray someone as a troll theme is
really lame and way overplayed. I could give a rat's ass who anyone
here thinks is a troll. I'll make up my own mind who shouldn't get
the time of day.

You spend most of your time kissing up to Steve Friedes, so why should
I be concerned? Carry on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.

I'm here to prevent that, I'll be forever. Please allow me to
introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame WOO WOO

It's "wealth and taste," dimwit.

Of course, the lyrics may be different for your version: Sympathy for
the Moron.

Quoted message said:

Well thanks for the info guys. If I'm a troll then I'm a pretty lousy one
because the question wasn't really controversial, and I didn't respond to the
flame bait.

I didn't call you a troll. I was referring to the dimwit who defined
your description as "isokinetic." He hasn't a clue and was just
making a stupid statement to draw fire.

Quoted message said:

I just knew this group had a bunch of steller knowledgable people
on it a few years ago. I'm really sorry to hear it's declined since then.
Maybe I'll need to find out where all the good people went.

FYI - I think the closest thing I'm looking for so far is Tai-Chi because that
has (can have) high tension movement. That's really my focus... any research
or system or philosophy of movement that incorporates high tension movements
where both a muscle and it's antagonist is contracting (regardless of whether
it's shortening or lengthening), along with any terminology that has been used
specifically to describe this situation.

Perhaps you could say what you didn't like about my answer?

Quoted message said:

Another reference I found is that Weider would flex his muscles while lifting
but I can't find that one right now maybe I'll dig it up later.

The classic is the concentration curl where one would "squeeze" at the
top of the movement. I have not read any research that indicates such
an action signficantly increases strength or hypertrophy, although
some folks swear by it. If you're desperate for a term, try
"isometric hold." I've used it occasionally, and I think you'll find
many in MFW have used the same term. Google is your friend.

--

No puppies were harmed during the posting of this
message. Any similarity of identities defamed to
actual persons living, dead, or existing in a
transcendental state is purely coincidental.

JMW said:

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:11:49 -0600, Lou Stein <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have a question on what this particular exercise is called:

Like when you tense up opposing muscles so your arm doesn't move so you can
show off your biceps. It's like isometrics, but you aren't pushing against an
object and you aren't pushing against your own hands. You are using your own
muscles to do isometrics. Is there a special name for this? Other than
"flexing" ; )

Ok now take that same concept of flexing, except you move through your entire
range of motion. How would one categorize this specifically? Isometric?
Isotonic? Isokinetic?

Another form of this exercise is flexing while lifting. That is, to flex your
muscles while lifting in order to gain more conscious control of the muscle
contraction.

Are there any books/videos/research that discuss this?

Thanks,
Lou Stein

"Sid Bonfire" replied:
"It's called isokinetic exercise.It's like isometric but with
movement."

Maybe I'll learn something here.

I Googled this very briefly and came across two different descriptions
of isokinetic. One involves contracting and shortening the muscle at
constant speed. The other is sometimes called "accommodating
resistance exercise" and entails maximum muscle contraction throughout
the full range of joint movement. "Resistance is variable in
proportion to the change in muscular capability at every point in the
range of motion. The variation is controlled so that at all times it
equals the product of the muscular strength." In either case, it
seems that machines (Norm, Cybex) are needed to do it.

I'm not exactly sure why this has been touted as
"the fastest way to increase muscle strength".
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/mustrain.htm

Isn't "flexing while lifting" another way to describe getting and
staying "tight" while lifting? So why is moving a free weight through
a full range of motion while staying tight a less efficient method of
gaining strength than using machines to do isokinetic exercises?

You're asking that question of The Troll. Are you expecting an
informed answer?

Everyone is a "troll" except those who the "Trollmeister" likes to
exclude, which is precious few! ;o)

Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(

JMW said:

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

How very magnanimous of you. And you were hoping for a useful answer
from someone whose stated goal is the destruction of this newsgroup?
Perhaps we should call you Pollyanna.

1. I really don't try to track trolls or the people you call trolls.
2. Before this thread I don't think I've read anything by "Lou Stein"
3. I don't compare headers to try to figure out which mask a troll
is wearing now.

You obviously don't read attributions to quotes, either. You were not
responding to Lou Stein. You were responding to "Sid Bonfire" aka
Bill Davidson. I have no reason to believe that Lou Stein is a troll,
nor did I ever imply that he was.

Quoted message said:

4. I don't think a troll is capable of destroying this NG. I
wouldn't even be mildly concerned if someone declared this to be
his/her intention.

This NG was once simultaneously really annoying and very
educational. I decided to accept reading the asinine (and
occasionally funny) diatribes, ad hominem attacks, and
occasionally uninformed comments from the "regulars" as the cost
for being able to learn a lot of really useful stuff here.

Most of these people have left and this NG is now nearly
dead. I hang around because it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.
Besides, I like to lurk and post in other NGs and it's easy
enough to return here

[censored]. The exodus of most of the knowledgeable people can be
traced to a few bitter [censored] trolling them. That goes all the way
back to Dan Duchaine. I've been here ten years and watched it happen.

You were the root cause of all the upset here John Williams, with your
"trolling" and "stalking" against those whom you considered
interlopers here.

Those that weren't involved with your "trolling" simply got fed up
with all the flak you attracted to the NG, and buggered off. this
group will never recover all the while you are here policing it and
"prosecuting" people...

JMW said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it is my hope (if not quite my
expectation) that informed people will someday want to post here.

I'm here to prevent that, I'll be forever. Please allow me to
introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and fame WOO WOO

It's "wealth and taste," dimwit.

You know everything John Williams...