More, More, More
Tim Daneliuk
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
aeiouy
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:2k1d17-...@ozzie.tundraware.com...
You're preaching to the choir. The problem is too many people like this;
http://www.gocomics.com/duplex/2010/01/04/
Doug Freese
"Tim Daneliuk" <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote in message
news:2k1d17-...@ozzie.tundraware.com...
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704350304574638550059084962.html
Thanks you but I have enough! ;)
-D
John Hurley
snip
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870435030457463855005908...
It really is not hard to put in 45 or 50 miles a week.
Everyone has different levels of natural talent ( or not so much ) but
for me the 50 odd mile a week base appears to be the level where over
time people without so much talent can work hard enough to start doing
"some amount of" catching up against the fast people.
I do not at all understand people who want to compete in complete a
thons who are not willing to ante up and put in that kind of base
mileage ... but there are a lot of things I do not understand.
Doug Freese
"John Hurley" <johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f60e11f2-eed0-40fc...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 5, 7:20 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
snip
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870435030457463855005908...
It really is not hard to put in 45 or 50 miles a week.
>Everyone has different levels of natural talent ( or not so much ) but
for me the 50 odd mile a week base appears to be the level where over
time people without so much talent can work hard enough to start doing
"some amount of" catching up against the fast people.>
Some do 50 and don't care who, if anyone, is in front, much less
catching. Catching up may happen but not necessarily the driving force.
> I do not at all understand people who want to compete in complete a
thons who are not willing to ante up and put in that kind of base
mileage ... but there are a lot of things I do not understand.>
What I think you don't understand is that people have different
defininitions of "compete." I sense you define compete to the nth
degree, or more vaguely, some near max base, time, miles, whatever. I
have no problem as this what drives you and your definition. To others
compete means running 5:59:59 marathon that has a 6 hour cutoff. I'm
sure we could come up with a wide variety of definitions.
I think we kind of aired this topic just a few days ago when Michelle
ranted about people running for fun.
-D
John Hurley
snip
> > I do not at all understand people who want to compete in complete a
>
> thons who are not willing to ante up and put in that kind of base
> mileage ... but there are a lot of things I do not understand.>
>
> What I think you don't understand is that people have different
> defininitions of "compete." I sense you define compete to the nth
> degree, or more vaguely, some near max base, time, miles, whatever. I
> have no problem as this what drives you and your definition. To others
> compete means running 5:59:59 marathon that has a 6 hour cutoff. I'm
> sure we could come up with a wide variety of definitions.
Just following up on the topic that Tim posted ... why don't you go
back and read that posting and the article that it referred to?
What part of the "but there are a lot of things I do not understand"
are you struggling with?
Tim Daneliuk
The only operative definition of "compete" I care about any more
(or ever, for that matter) is in the self-improvement sense. I
came to running late in my life for what at the time were medically
necessary reasons. At this point, I do it more for the joy of it
all.
Last year, I averaged a tad under 14.5 mpw with an average mile time
around 10:20 mpm. Are these compelling numbers? Are they "competitive".
They are ... *for me*. In some absolute sense, if I were worried about
running in competition, they'd be woefully inadequate, but I'm not
all the interested in running with a bunch of other sweaty people :)
(Unless there's a Victoria's Secret 10K and I'm the only male entrant,
but that ain't gonna happen either :)
This year, I'd like to try and get that weekly average up. We'll see.
Practical reality keeps intruding. I am really lousy at running in the
early morning, and long work days and travel get in the way as well.
My internal sense is that I should be able to get to 20/25 mpw if
time permits.
In the mean time, I just enjoy what I can do.
And now I'm off for a few miles in lovely 21F pre-snowstorm conditions.
If I do not post again within a few weeks, send the St. Bernard and, especially,
the brandy.
John Hurley
snip
> This year, I'd like to try and get that weekly average up. We'll see.
> Practical reality keeps intruding. I am really lousy at running in the
> early morning, and long work days and travel get in the way as well.
> My internal sense is that I should be able to get to 20/25 mpw if
> time permits.
The secret for me is getting up early. Typically at 5 am so I can run
from 6 to 7 am.
To be able to get up that early you need to get to sleep at a
reasonable time.
Darn now you guys know even more of my secrets@
rms
One thing these training videos are saying is focus on quality workouts,
versus junk miles where you're plodding along for some variable time at an
unknown pace. Then 'running more' won't mean tedious plodding, but have a
goal and help focus your mental energy. One of their first steps is do a
measured 1 mile time trial, this will give you statistical research-based
5k/10k/etc paces, which you can use in an actual training plan. This is
what I need to do this year, with less wandering out on trails 'when I feel
like it' and as a result gaining little fitness and not improving one whit.
rms
Doug Freese
On Jan 6, 1:43 pm, "Doug Freese" <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>What part of the "but there are a lot of things I do not understand"
are you struggling with?>
Your definitions which at times is so rigorous that you lose sight and
understanding.
-D
Doug Freese
On Jan 6, 2:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> The secret for me is getting up early. Typically at 5 am so I can run
from 6 to 7 am>
Did that for about 15 years. I still get up that early but now wait
until 9 or 10. Read a few newspapers, do the crossword puzzle, tend to
mail and some running forums and then go for a run. Plan for retirement!
;)
-D
Tim Daneliuk
You suck :)
Tim Daneliuk
Say a bit more about "a measrued 1 mi time trial" would you please?
Tim Daneliuk
BTW, I'm back. Kennel the St. Bernard ... darn it, I was
so looking forward to a nice brandy...
Doug Freese
> You suck :)
Yup! ;)
rms
As I understand it, the idea is you run 1m as fast as you can, and from
that you can predict expected pace times at longer distances. Then you
train at a mix of those paces for speedwork or for distance, and so you can
replicate them in a race. The coaches discuss it starting here and in the
several succeeding videos: http://vimeo.com/3765522
They seem to regard 50miles/week as the 'bend in the curve' beyond which you
get diminishing returns as well as increased injuries.
rms
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > The secret for me is getting up early. Typically at 5 am so I can run
> from 6 to 7 am>
>
> Did that for about 15 years. I still get up that early but now wait
> until 9 or 10. Read a few newspapers, do the crossword puzzle, tend to
> mail and some running forums and then go for a run. Plan for retirement!
In the Summer months, I get up between 4 and 4:30, and am out the door at
first light. This time of year, I'll start my run anywhere from 10 am to 3
pm, depending on the distance, the temperature, and some other, nebulous,
criteria.
--
26.2 Because I can
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > You suck :)
>
> Yup! ;)
You're a vampire?
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> I think we kind of aired this topic just a few days ago when Michelle
> ranted about people running for fun.
I think you misunderstood my rant. But lets not get into that again.
Besides, the conversation here and an in-person discussion with another
runner I met a few days ago have ameliorated my opinion a bit.
Dot
> On 1/6/2010 6:00 PM, Doug Freese wrote:
>
>> "John Hurley" <johnb...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:3b960d13-83c2-4ac2...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 6, 2:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> The secret for me is getting up early. Typically at 5 am so I can run
>>>
>> from 6 to 7 am>
>>
>> Did that for about 15 years. I still get up that early but now wait
>> until 9 or 10. Read a few newspapers, do the crossword puzzle, tend to
>> mail and some running forums and then go for a run. Plan for retirement!
>> ;)
>>
>> -D
> You suck :)
>
>
Wait till the sun comes up and thermometer gets above 0F.;) However,
that usually results in racing the light back to the parking area. We
have 1 hr of reasonable daylight after sun goes down, and may not need
lights for another 30min beyond that.
(actually with present weather, it might be better to get out before the
sun comes up)
Dot
Paul Rudin
> On Jan 6, 2:50 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>> This year, I'd like to try and get that weekly average up. We'll see.
>> Practical reality keeps intruding. I am really lousy at running in the
>> early morning, and long work days and travel get in the way as well.
>> My internal sense is that I should be able to get to 20/25 mpw if
>> time permits.
>
> The secret for me is getting up early. Typically at 5 am so I can run
> from 6 to 7 am.
At this time of year it's pitch dark here between 6 and 7...
Doug Freese
"Michelle" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-6F7C3C...@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article <hi3aj9$fa4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > You suck :)
>>
>> Yup! ;)
>
> You're a vampire?
M, the naughty thoughts that are traversing my brain cells would make a
seasoned hooker, straight or gay, blush.
-D
Doug Freese
> In article <hi2lkk$a31$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Besides, the conversation here and an in-person discussion with
> another
> runner I met a few days ago have ameliorated my opinion a bit.
Then there is help for you after all? Welcome to the gray zone where
black and white become more meaningless. ;)
-D
Doug Freese
"Paul Rudin" <paul....@rudin.co.uk> wrote in message
news:87vdfee...@rudin.co.uk...
So? If you don't have street lights there are flashlights and/or head
lamps.
-D
Paul Rudin
You're right, but given the choice I'd rather run when it's light.
I do sometime run when it's dark - but in the evenings rather than the
mornings.
John Hurley
snip
> >> This year, I'd like to try and get that weekly average up. We'll see.
> >> Practical reality keeps intruding. I am really lousy at running in the
> >> early morning, and long work days and travel get in the way as well.
> >> My internal sense is that I should be able to get to 20/25 mpw if
> >> time permits.
>
> > The secret for me is getting up early. Typically at 5 am so I can run
> > from 6 to 7 am.
>
Paul wrote:
# At this time of year it's pitch dark here between 6 and 7...
I do a whole bunch of my winter running in the dark in the trails in
the woods ... after a while you get to know where the turns are
supposed to be.
Besides it provides excitement and a test of your heart and cardiac
system when a deer jumps out and starts running away from you 10 feet
away on the trail in the dark.
If I was a reasonable runner or someone who had common sense I would
probably use some kind of lighting system.
Nah that ain't me ... besides the terrain is relatively flat.
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
There's always hope for me. ;)
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> > You suck :)
> >>
> >> Yup! ;)
> >
> > You're a vampire?
>
> M, the naughty thoughts that are traversing my brain cells would make a
> seasoned hooker, straight or gay, blush.
I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, or Hungarian for that
matter.
Charlie Pendejo
> They seem to regard 50miles/week as the 'bend in the curve'
> beyond which you get diminishing returns as well as increased
> injuries.
By all means, if this lore speaks to you, resonates with your
experience and/or reasoning, give their program a shot.
To advocate for the devil, I'd also point out that:
- "junk" mileage is a term with several meaning, depending on the
speaker, but always with an agenda: to disparage the opposite of
whatever the speaker believes in. It seems there's always lots of
people whose experience is these "junk" runs (whether that means very
easy effort, short duration, paces in between "optimal" training
zones...) have strongly contributed to their training. In my
experience, all three of the aforementioned flavors of junk have shown
themselves to be anything but garbage at various times. I imagine
some of this depends on the individual and the context of his overall
training history and current plan.
- as intuitively appealing as "diminishing returns" and "increased
injuries" after some moderate mileage seems, as good as it looks on a
graph, it's far from runners' universal experience. Many runners will
say things like "increasing mileage from 40 to 65 MPW gave me minimal
gains, but than 65 to 85 made me an entirely different runner" - and
also "I was constantly getting injured at 50 MPW with 2-3 hard
workouts; but 80 MPW of mostly easy running was no problem, and after
a few months of that I was able to fold the hard workouts back in with
no problem, now that I was stronger from the better base." Both of
these also reflect some of my experience.
Charlie Pendejo
> I'm not going to touch that with a ten foot pole, or Hungarian for that
> matter.
Ha, been watching Ken Russell films, have you?
Michelle
<63f433b4-e67f-411e...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Charlie Pendejo <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope. Who is Ken Russell?
BTW, that line is older than you and me combined.
Tim Daneliuk
You have just demonstrated a civil tone and the ability to be
persuaded to change your mind. You are hereby banned from the
internet...
Doug Freese
"Charlie Pendejo" <charlie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b87a0518-b50a-4fe3...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> rms:
>> They seem to regard 50miles/week as the 'bend in the curve'
>> beyond which you get diminishing returns as well as increased
>> injuries.
I'm not sure who "they" are. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the
bend in the road. Problems arise when people try to take the bend too
fast and just like a car, go into a slide and crash. There is data to
show the injury rates go up significantly after 50 but I contend it is
the individual once again, doing too much, too, soon. too fast. I think
almost all of us could do 80-100 a week if we had the available time in
life and shit load of patience. Since runners are classic type A,
patience is not or hardly in play and and they break.
> To advocate for the devil, I'd also point out that:
>
> - "junk" mileage is a term with several meaning, depending on the
> speaker, but always with an agenda: to disparage the opposite of
> whatever the speaker believes in.
Overall I don't get the same read. Those using junk in a derrogitory
disparaging way are few. The junk issue usually goes to value of +/-
value junk vs. easy vs. day off. I find the disussion of junk miles
much ado about nothing.
> It seems there's always lots of
> people whose experience is these "junk" runs (whether that means very
> easy effort, short duration, paces in between "optimal" training
> zones...) have strongly contributed to their training. In my
> experience, all three of the aforementioned flavors of junk have shown
> themselves to be anything but garbage at various times. I imagine
> some of this depends on the individual and the context of his overall
> training history and current plan.
>
> - as intuitively appealing as "diminishing returns" and "increased
> injuries" after some moderate mileage seems, as good as it looks on a
> graph, it's far from runners' universal experience. Many runners will
> say things like "increasing mileage from 40 to 65 MPW gave me minimal
> gains, but than 65 to 85 made me an entirely different runner" - and
> also "I was constantly getting injured at 50 MPW with 2-3 hard
> workouts; but 80 MPW of mostly easy running was no problem, and after
> a few months of that I was able to fold the hard workouts back in with
> no problem, now that I was stronger from the better base." Both of
> these also reflect some of my experience.
All reasonable.
-D
Michelle
Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
> You have just demonstrated a civil tone and the ability to be persuaded
> to change your mind. You are hereby banned from the internet...
Fuck that!
rick++
But that is a relative term.
When I was in my 20s that meant ten hours of running a week
and marathons.
Decades later its about half that intensity to avoid injury.
I think I actually about two hours of aerobic exercise over
a week to stave off metabolic disease and control weight.
Anything more is habit and pleasure.
rick++
running boom (there were other booms) - Dr. Kenneth Cooper-
now suggest an upper limit on aerobic exercise of a
few tens of miles a week. He believes too much
aerobic exercise produces dangerous ceullar radicals
which accelerates aging and cause cancer.
Dr. Cooper wrote best-seller in the 1960s saying that aerobic
exercise (he coined that term) was better for one's health
than the prevailing military calisthetics regime popular at that time.
He had had an exercise point scale where running, swimming,
and walking got you to the maximum target (15 miles a week)
with minimal time. Competitive yuppies like myself said "why stop
at the top of the scale" and went a lot farther than 15 miles,
including
marathons and ultras. Hence the modern running boom was started
and hasnt waned.
John Hurley
snip
> > To advocate for the devil, I'd also point out that:
>
> > - "junk" mileage is a term with several meaning, depending on the
> > speaker, but always with an agenda: to disparage the opposite of
> > whatever the speaker believes in.
...
Junk miles usually means 1 of 2 things;
1) Mileage that you are doing that is extra with no specific goal in
mind except to be able to eat extra food.
Example ... running 60 miles a week instead of 45 so you don't have to
cut back on beer consumption.
2) Mileage that you are doing that is so slow that it's value to a
racing program is negligible.
Usuallty used in that context by real fast people who are doing some
extra miles at paces like above 8 or 9 minutes a mile.
> Overall I don't get the same read. Those using junk in a derrogitory
> disparaging way are few. The junk issue usually goes to value of +/-
> value junk vs. easy vs. day off. I find the disussion of junk miles
> much ado about nothing.
Scary but for once I think I am in agreement with Doug.
Junk mileage is a qualifier not used as an insult. Ninety percent of
the time is it used by the person doing the mileage not by someone
else discussing the quality of a different runner.
Tim Daneliuk
You may now rejoin the internet already in progress.
Charlie Pendejo
> Junk miles usually means 1 of 2 things;
>
> 1) Mileage that you are doing that is extra with no specific goal in
> mind except to be able to eat extra food.
>
> Example ... running 60 miles a week instead of 45 so you don't have to
> cut back on beer consumption.
>
> 2) Mileage that you are doing that is so slow that it's value to a
> racing program is negligible.
>
> Usuallty used in that context by real fast people who are doing some
> extra miles at paces like above 8 or 9 minutes a mile.
> Junk mileage is a qualifier not used as an insult. Ninety percent of
> the time is it used by the person doing the mileage
Fair enough. I'd stand by my point, though, that both types you
identify above are likely to improve one's racing, regardless of the
runner's intent or the seeming irrelevance of his pace to race pace.
(Assuming he's not _only_ doing LSD... I do think there's some merit
to "long slow distance makes for long slow runners.")
Doug Freese
> On 1/7/2010 10:03 AM, Michelle wrote:
>> In article <ru7h17-...@ozzie.tundraware.com>,
>> Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You have just demonstrated a civil tone and the ability to be
>>> persuaded
>>> to change your mind. You are hereby banned from the internet...
>>
>> Fuck that!
So much for the lady. ;)
>>
>
> You may now rejoin the internet already in progress.
LMFAO!!!
-D
Doug Freese
"rick++" <ric...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce7b6d7b-fbe7-46fa...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Ironically the guy most respnsible the late 20th century
> running boom (there were other booms) - Dr. Kenneth Cooper-
> now suggest an upper limit on aerobic exercise of a
> few tens of miles a week. He believes too much
> aerobic exercise produces dangerous ceullar radicals
> which accelerates aging and cause cancer.
He was severely taken to the carpet and pummeled for that allegation.
There was no real science to back it up then or now.
>
> Dr. Cooper wrote best-seller in the 1960s saying that aerobic
> exercise (he coined that term) was better for one's health
> than the prevailing military calisthetics regime popular at that time.
> He had had an exercise point scale where running, swimming,
> and walking got you to the maximum target (15 miles a week)
> with minimal time. Competitive yuppies like myself said "why stop
> at the top of the scale" and went a lot farther than 15 miles,
> including
> marathons and ultras. Hence the modern running boom was started
> and hasnt waned.
Yes, he will be remembered in history.
-D
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> Fuck that!
>
> So much for the lady. ;)
I'm a woman; I never claimed to be a lady. ;)
rick++
>
> Yes, he will be remembered in history.
I thought he and perhaps others of the time should
have gotten a Nobel prize in medicine.
That insight probably added more years of life to
the developed world than most other recent medical
discoveries.
John Hurley
snip
> Fair enough. I'd stand by my point, though, that both types you
> identify above are likely to improve one's racing, regardless of the
> runner's intent or the seeming irrelevance of his pace to race pace.
> (Assuming he's not _only_ doing LSD... I do think there's some merit
> to "long slow distance makes for long slow runners.")
Well for people that have been running for decades the junk miles may
make you feel less guilty about Taco Bell ( which by the way has a
tasty double steak quesadilla on special right now ) but pobably won't
help you improve your racing.
At least it is not working for me ... so far ...
Doug Freese
> In article <hi5bjb$880$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Fuck that!
>>
>> So much for the lady. ;)
>
> I'm a woman; I never claimed to be a lady. ;)
I prefer the ones that combine the two, at least until the shades are
drawn and candles flickering.
-D
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > I'm a woman; I never claimed to be a lady. ;)
>
> I prefer the ones that combine the two, at least until the shades are
> drawn and candles flickering.
You want a lady in the parlor, a chef in the kitchen, and a courtesan in
the bedroom, all rolled up into the same woman, right?
Tim Daneliuk
You forgot "A sheep in the pasture", oh wait ... nevermind. Kthxbye.
Doug Freese
The first two are reasonable but a courtesan - a prostitute with a
courtly, wealthy, or upper-class clientele - not even close plus I'm not
wealthy just retired.
-D
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > You want a lady in the parlor, a chef in the kitchen, and a courtesan
> > in the bedroom, all rolled up into the same woman, right?
>
> The first two are reasonable but a courtesan - a prostitute with a
> courtly, wealthy, or upper-class clientele - not even close plus I'm not
> wealthy just retired.
You don't want your woman to treat you as if she were a courtesan when
you're in bed with her?
BTW, the description I wrote is from a very old joke describing the ideal
wife.
dizzy
> Charlie Pendejo <charlie.pend...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Fair enough. �I'd stand by my point, though, that both types you
>> identify above are likely to improve one's racing, regardless of the
>> runner's intent or the seeming irrelevance of his pace to race pace.
>> (Assuming he's not _only_ doing LSD... I do think there's some merit
>> to "long slow distance makes for long slow runners.")
>
>Well for people that have been running for decades the junk miles may
>make you feel less guilty about Taco Bell ( which by the way has a
>tasty double steak quesadilla on special right now ) but pobably won't
>help you improve your racing.
You tried their new "volcano" tacos? I have to admit they're pretty
tasty.
aeiouy
> On Jan 7, 10:35 am, "Doug Freese" <dfre...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > > To advocate for the devil, I'd also point out that:
>
> > > - "junk" mileage is a term with several meaning, depending on the
> > > speaker, but always with an agenda: to disparage the opposite of
> > > whatever the speaker believes in.
>
> ...
>
> Junk miles usually means 1 of 2 things;
>
> 1) Mileage that you are doing that is extra with no specific goal in
> mind except to be able to eat extra food.
>
> Example ... running 60 miles a week instead of 45 so you don't have to
> cut back on beer consumption.
There is absolutely nothing junk about miles that allow you to consume an
extra round or two. OTOH, Taco Bell is the very definition of junk.
Doug Freese
"aeiouy" <aei...@vowels.com> wrote in message
news:766dneybPpvKS9vW...@giganews.com...
Almost all fast food is junk unless you order a salad without any
toping. Want a real eye opener next time your in McDonalds, turn over
the place mat they put down on the tray. You can read the amount of
calories, fat and sodium in all their choices. Other than the salad
sans everything, the least worst item on the menu was the french fries.
We all know fast food is far from healthy but what a nutrition reality
check. FWIW I was only having coffee and regardles of the taste hype, it
was dishwater. Damn, I forgot to look up the only item that I do eat at
Mickey's the Egg McMuffin. I do a pair of these before a multi-hour run
or race.
If you love your kids keep them away from this sh*t.
-D
Doug Freese
> In article <hi60r0$t3k$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> > You want a lady in the parlor, a chef in the kitchen, and a
>> > courtesan
>> > in the bedroom, all rolled up into the same woman, right?
>>
>> The first two are reasonable but a courtesan - a prostitute with a
>> courtly, wealthy, or upper-class clientele - not even close plus I'm
>> not
>> wealthy just retired.
>
> You don't want your woman to treat you as if she were a courtesan when
> you're in bed with her?
That may be your fantasy but not mine. ;) I prefer the consumation be
more than money and role playing.
>
> BTW, the description I wrote is from a very old joke describing the
> ideal
> wife.
I know.
-D
Dot
http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6262/2
That's actually an interesting set of data. Look down their Category
selection and you'll find many of the fast food joints.
Dot
Doug Freese
"Dot" <AKT...@mtaonline.net> wrote in message
news:wLSdnUvT08kRgtrW...@posted.mtasolutions...
> Google is your friend:
> http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts/foods-from-mcdonalds/6262/2
>
> That's actually an interesting set of data.
For a pre-run food they are not bad.
-D
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > You don't want your woman to treat you as if she were a courtesan when
> > you're in bed with her?
>
> That may be your fantasy but not mine. ;) I prefer the consumation be
> more than money and role playing.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or am I not being clear? It's
not about the money and role playing; it's about being brought to the
heights of ecstasy.
Charlie Pendejo
>> That may be your fantasy but not mine. ;) I prefer the consumation be
>> more than money and role playing.
Michelle:
> Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or am I not being clear?
I think it's just that you speak different languages. Pretty sure
"courtesan" sounds too classy for Douglass' more, uh, rugged tastes.
Suspect he'd prefer "filthy whore".
Doug Freese
> Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or am I not being clear?
> It's
> not about the money and role playing; it's about being brought to the
> heights of ecstasy.
And you obviouoly missed my point. One doesn't have to be female
prostitute(courtesan) to make that happen. A wife, girlfrield or local
nympho, which are far from a prostitues, can do the same. The term
courtesan belittles the act but I remotely remember the notion of
ecstasy. ;)
-D
Michelle
"Doug Freese" <dfr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or am I not being clear?
> > It's not about the money and role playing; it's about being brought to
> > the heights of ecstasy.
>
> And you obviouoly missed my point. One doesn't have to be female
> prostitute(courtesan) to make that happen. A wife, girlfrield or local
> nympho, which are far from a prostitues, can do the same.
You are taking my message all too literally.
Ed Prochak
[]
>
> You forgot "A sheep in the pasture", oh wait ... nevermind. Kthxbye.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Who let a Scotsman in here?
John Hurley
snip
> You tried their new "volcano" tacos? I have to admit they're pretty
> tasty.
Been there ... done that ... a bunch of times.
I think the volcano ones are off the menu currently and one of the
things that replaced them eventually were the black tacos ( kind of
like a volcano one with a different shell ? ) ... then those things
were also moved off the menu ( sigh ).
That's why the double steak quesadilla ( sp? ) is my current weakness
over there. More running just moves the guilty pleasure tolerance
level meter up a little!