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] Aaaaaaaah! [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 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 +0000 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >- >-------- > >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
