Biceps!

On Dec 7, 10:37 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <0e835bc1-0d6b-40f0-aa3d-79615dcf3...@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 9:27 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > BasketBall = Heavy Impact
>
> > > > Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.
>
> > > It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
> > > in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.
> > > Coincidental correlation or incidental causation?
>
> > Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
> > started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
> > ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
> > lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
> > STFU.
>
> He doesn't seem to follow ideas too well.

Logic is a tool of the patriarchal hegemony. He's just being a
feminist.

In article
<68d02fe3-6c6b-4665-8327-9fc77a127bb1@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
geek_girl <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 10:37 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0e835bc1-0d6b-40f0-aa3d-79615dcf3...@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 7, 9:27 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > BasketBall = Heavy Impact
> >
> > > > > Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.
> >
> > > > It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
> > > > in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.
> > > > Coincidental correlation or incidental causation?
> >
> > > Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
> > > started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
> > > ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
> > > lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
> > > STFU.
> >
> > He doesn't seem to follow ideas too well.
>
> Logic is a tool of the patriarchal hegemony. He's just being a
> feminist.

LOL!

Yeah, yeah. But I didn't say 'logic'. So possibly he could even intuit
the ideas.

--
Keith

Prisoner at War wrote:
> On Dec 6, 1:45 pm, "Wotmewurry" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Good stocky build PAW
>
>
>
> Thanks -- but the thing is, it's just genetics! The photo in the
> lower right-hand corner is from years ago, whereas the others are
> current, and you see how there's not much difference...I like weights
> but truth to tell, I was considered "big" even back in high school,
> before I was doing all them push-ups and pull-ups in the Army! And
> there I was considered "buff" before I really got into weights in
> college! So I think it's all basically genetics...I do work out hard,
> but I know I'm not dedicated about a proper diet...so you see, it's
> just genetics, the luck of the draw!
>
> The thing is, we need to work hard in order for the genetics to
> express itself! But the result is indeed mainly genetics. This may
> all sound tautologous, but it seems to be a missing dimension in many
> people's perspectives....

I agree genetics sure play a big part thats why some of us have to work even
harder at adding muscle and size.

Damn, I envy genetically-enhanced guys who lift a few weights and get
massively huge, whereas I have been working so hard, regularly, and watch my
diet, with very slow results. I do, however, enjoy weights and get quite a
buzz after a hard workout - both physically and mentally.

Be interested to see more of your progress pics, mate.

On Dec 7, 2:20 pm, "Wotmewurry" <m...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree genetics sure play a big part thats why some of us have to work even
> harder at adding muscle and size.
>
> Damn, I envy genetically-enhanced guys who lift a few weights and get
> massively huge, whereas I have been working so hard, regularly, and watch my
> diet, with very slow results. I do, however, enjoy weights and get quite a
> buzz after a hard workout - both physically and mentally.
>
> Be interested to see more of your progress pics, mate.

Thing is, I'm not exactly on any program or anything. My only
ambition right now is to raise my stats on my lifts. Maybe increase
the four-pack back to a six-pack along the way, somehow. I don't
think pics will show any "progress," especially since my "goals," such
as they are, are fairly modest.

Progress pics are fun, but don't be fooled -- it's really genetics.
Sure, there's hard work involved, but what you're seeing is genetics,
not so much the hard work. In other posts, I've related how I've
taken over five years off from working out...between the old pics and
the new pics you saw, I never worked out for four years while I was in
a real relationship, and then hit the gym for like half a year after
the break-up, then went off for another while goofing off with girls
again, then went back in the gym, then off, and now, finally, this
year, I've been exercising regularly...and yet there's so little
difference, really!

So I am glad to hear that you enjoy working out. Screw all the rest,
if the one result that really matters -- how you feel -- is there for
you!

On Dec 7, 11:59 am, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey, I asked you a question. You chose not to answer it,

Don't be so silly. It was a rhetorical question. What, answering,
yes, I do know high school weight-lifters personally, would shut you
up? That doesn't even matter, one way or the other.

Sorry, I'm not interested in the ol' usenet game of comparing
anecdotes.

> which tends
> to support my initial suspicion that you have absolutely no RL
> experience with short teenagers and lifting. I do, which means that I
> have observed (and experienced) things that you clearly have not.

LOL! Argument by fiat.

Now if only you could win over your muscles the same way, huh? But
guess what, real life isn't as simple as a usenet pissing contest!

> What is *your* point? Several people have told you that there's a
> very, very good chance that you're wrong and explained *why* you're
> most likely wrong.

They've opined that it doesn't affect growth. Their "proof" is to
digress into basketball.

I'm opining that it might affect growth. I say, why build the rest of
the house when you're still laying the foundations.

So sue me.

> So why are you continuing to insist that you're
> right, when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?

Everyone is just spouting opinions here. "Opinions," because there's
no definitive proof one way or the other.

Please grow up and get over yourself. Here's a clue: take the duct
tape off your eyes and put it over your mouth.

On Dec 7, 12:08 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
>
>
> LOL!
>
> No. I don't reside in the USA.

Well, I'm sure there's a conservative party in your neighborhood which
could use your reasoning skills.

> And I don't have any concerns about basketball. The human body can
> handle the magnitude of force required to jump quite easily thank you.

Thank you: so it was indeed just a red herring you brought up.

> Not once did I claim basketball was dangerous.

Not once did I claim you did. But you must have an argument, I guess
it gives you something to do on a slow day in hell....

> The point is - neither is
> weightlifting. And it has been studied. Far less chance of injury in
> weightlifting or powerlifting than virtually all other sports. Quite a
> simple reason why - controlled environment. You don't have other people
> moving through it and changing things.

I'm not talking "injury." From the git-go I've been talking stunting
growth.

But, of course, any excuse will serve a tyrant....

> You seem to like to use correllation is not causation, but the simple
> fact is you don't even have correlation.

What, back to comparing anecdotes now?

> The people in a high school
> weightroom are not short. Most of them are athletes, which means
> football, basketball, volleyball, wrestling, etc. Which have large as
> well as short people.

I'm talking about weight-lifters, people who are seriously into
weights as high-schoolers. It's been my observation that the beefy
kids tend to be shorter.

Why don't we just keep this simple, so you can follow along:

Why build the rest of the house when Mother Nature is still busy
laying the foundation?

Teens are still growing. It is suspected that a serious weight-
lifting program could stunt growth. Save the real weights for later;
calisthenics will do just fine until then.

> --
> Keith

On Dec 7, 12:01 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Oy vey. Not only do you have trouble understanding what others write,
> you have no idea what you wrote!


Okay, you little shiksa, I'll type slowly so that even you can follow
along:

Serious weight-lifting by teens may stunt height. Many beefy kids who
lift weights in high school are shorter than the other kids.
Correlation, or causation?

AFAIK, the jury's still out on this. Of course, if you have a direct
line to God, please have him update the MFW FAQ.

On Dec 7, 2:01 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 11:59 am, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hey, I asked you a question. You chose not to answer it,
>
> Don't be so silly. It was a rhetorical question. What, answering,
> yes, I do know high school weight-lifters personally, would shut you
> up? That doesn't even matter, one way or the other.

It would matter, but you don't realize that because you don't even
know what you wrote or which point I was responding to.

> > which tends
> > to support my initial suspicion that you have absolutely no RL
> > experience with short teenagers and lifting. I do, which means that I
> > have observed (and experienced) things that you clearly have not.
>
> LOL! Argument by fiat.

Umm. No. You seem to have lost the plot. All I was pointing out there
was that yes, my observations are actual observations whereas yours
appear to be pulled out of some bodily orifice (and no, I don't want
to know which one.) Your creative snipping doesn't change what I was
actually responding to.

> > What is *your* point? Several people have told you that there's a
> > very, very good chance that you're wrong and explained *why* you're
> > most likely wrong.
>
> They've opined that it doesn't affect growth. Their "proof" is to
> digress into basketball.
>

I suggest you read all of that again, because if that's all you got
from it, you weren't paying very close attention the first time you
read it.

> I'm opining that it might affect growth. I say, why build the rest of
> the house when you're still laying the foundations.
>
> So sue me.

A person is not a house, and it's not so easy to tease apart the
"foundation" from "the rest of the house." Do you honestly believe
that muscle, connective tissue, and bone are *not* part of the
foundation? What do you think the "foundation" of a person is?

> > So why are you continuing to insist that you're
> > right, when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?
>
> Everyone is just spouting opinions here. "Opinions," because there's
> no definitive proof one way or the other.

And you still don't know what you wrote.

> Please grow up and get over yourself. Here's a clue: take the duct
> tape off your eyes and put it over your mouth.

I'm plenty grown up, but I'll never get over myself. And really, I
don't think you want to know where the duct tape actually is.

On Dec 7, 2:17 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 12:01 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Oy vey. Not only do you have trouble understanding what others write,
> > you have no idea what you wrote!
>
> Okay, you little shiksa,

Wrong on both counts, shlemiel.

Time-out, folks -- just a word from your sponsor:

Growing bodies are delicate. Serious weight-training could stunt
eventual height. No need to build the rest of the house while Mother
Nature is still laying the foundations. Calisthenics will do just
fine for teenagers.

"Logic" has nothing to do with it. It simply is what it is. And the
jury's still out, so until then, why chance it: the teenage years are
the only time for height gains, while there's another decade or two or
three later on for mass gains.

Now, back to your regularly-scheduled mutual ass-scratching....

On Dec 7, 11:51 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <68d02fe3-6c6b-4665-8327-9fc77a127...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 10:37 am, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <0e835bc1-0d6b-40f0-aa3d-79615dcf3...@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 7, 9:27 am, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Dec 6, 2:29 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > BasketBall = Heavy Impact
>
> > > > > > Weightlifting/Powerlifting/Bodybuilding = ZERO mpact.
>
> > > > > It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
> > > > > in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.
> > > > > Coincidental correlation or incidental causation?
>
> > > > Self-selection, doofus. Do you actually *know* any short people who
> > > > started lifting when they were teenagers? If so, perhaps you should
> > > > ask them why they started lifting, and whether or not they have non-
> > > > lifting family members who are also short. If not, perhaps you should
> > > > STFU.
>
> > > He doesn't seem to follow ideas too well.
>
> > Logic is a tool of the patriarchal hegemony. He's just being a
> > feminist.
>
> LOL!
>
> Yeah, yeah. But I didn't say 'logic'. So possibly he could even intuit
> the ideas.
>
> --
> Keith

In theory, I suppose he *could* intuit them, but at this point that
seems quite unlikely. We tried to explain them to him using logic, and
that failed miserably as well.

On Dec 7, 2:30 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Time-out, folks -- just a word from your sponsor:
>
> Growing bodies are delicate.

*snort*

I'm so sorry your mommy wouldn't let you play. She meant well. Really,
she did.

In article
<440c86fd-de25-4ec0-b9cb-38cf23e92384@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 12:08 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > No. I don't reside in the USA.
>
> Well, I'm sure there's a conservative party in your neighborhood which
> could use your reasoning skills.
>
> > And I don't have any concerns about basketball. The human body can
> > handle the magnitude of force required to jump quite easily thank you.
>
> Thank you: so it was indeed just a red herring you brought up.
>
> > Not once did I claim basketball was dangerous.
>
> Not once did I claim you did. But you must have an argument, I guess
> it gives you something to do on a slow day in hell....
>
> > The point is - neither is
> > weightlifting. And it has been studied. Far less chance of injury in
> > weightlifting or powerlifting than virtually all other sports. Quite a
> > simple reason why - controlled environment. You don't have other people
> > moving through it and changing things.
>
> I'm not talking "injury." From the git-go I've been talking stunting
> growth.
>
> But, of course, any excuse will serve a tyrant....
>
> > You seem to like to use correllation is not causation, but the simple
> > fact is you don't even have correlation.
>
> What, back to comparing anecdotes now?
>
> > The people in a high school
> > weightroom are not short. Most of them are athletes, which means
> > football, basketball, volleyball, wrestling, etc. Which have large as
> > well as short people.
>
> I'm talking about weight-lifters, people who are seriously into
> weights as high-schoolers. It's been my observation that the beefy
> kids tend to be shorter.
>
> Why don't we just keep this simple, so you can follow along:
>
> Why build the rest of the house when Mother Nature is still busy
> laying the foundation?
>
> Teens are still growing. It is suspected that a serious weight-
> lifting program could stunt growth. Save the real weights for later;
> calisthenics will do just fine until then.

You reallu have no expertise or even background knowledge about what you
are talking about. You were unaware of what lifts were contested in
weightlfiting as compared to powerlifting.

--
Keith

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> Teens are still growing. It is suspected that a serious weight-
> lifting program could stunt growth. Save the real weights for later;
> calisthenics will do just fine until then.

Dips and pullups & pushups !?!?!?

The pectorals, triceps, lats and biceps can tell that the stress they have
to deal with is from weight made of flesh instead of iron?

Really?

They can do that?

--
Pete

On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It would matter, but you don't realize that because you don't even
> know what you wrote or which point I was responding to.

You were asking a rhetorical question. Like a little bitch, you're
now grasping at any little straw in order to manufacture an argument.

If you want to break up, just say so. I mean, I'm not forcing you to
swallow anything.

> Umm. No. You seem to have lost the plot. All I was pointing out there
> was that yes, my observations are actual observations whereas yours
> appear to be pulled out of some bodily orifice (and no, I don't want
> to know which one.)

Which is what I'd said: from afar, over the transom, you observe that
my observations aren't as good as yours.

Fucking brilliant. If there's proof that the female sex is
intellectually inferior, you are it.

> Your creative snipping doesn't change what I was
> actually responding to.

"Creative snipping?" Unlike you, I'm sure many observers won't have
lost the thread of the conversation simply due to my concision.

> I suggest you read all of that again, because if that's all you got
> from it, you weren't paying very close attention the first time you
> read it.

I suggest you drop it and get a life.

> A person is not a house,

And an analogy is not an identity, so relax.

> and it's not so easy to tease apart the
> "foundation" from "the rest of the house."

ROTFLMFAO!!!

Hehehe, typical "chick logic"...tell me, are you someone's sock
puppet, or is that simply a boot up your ass?

> Do you honestly believe
> that muscle, connective tissue, and bone are *not* part of the
> foundation? What do you think the "foundation" of a person is?

LOL! I can just imagine Hobbes serenading you...

"You are the rose of my life..."

"What?!?! A rose??? Something with thorns, huh!!! Something that's
got no brain, eh!!! Just what do you take me for?!?! You honestly
think a weak frilly petal can compare with my biceps???"

> And you still don't know what you wrote.

Okay, I don't know what I wrote. You know what I wrote. Because I'm
just a figment of your over-active imagination, and none of this is
really happening. Just step away from the keyboard, now, real nice
and slow....

> I'm plenty grown up, but I'll never get over myself. And really, I
> don't think you want to know where the duct tape actually is.

Okay, Hobbes, she's all yours, I'm done fucking around with this rainy
day throwaway fuck....

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> It's not simply about "impact." The observation is that muscle-heads
> in high school are shorter than regular, even slim, kids.

BECAUSE ECTOMORPHS ARE TALLER AND SKINNIER THAN ENDO/MESOMORPHS !!!

Damn...

> Coincidental correlation or incidental causation? Until the jury is
> in with an unanimous verdict, why take the risk? Lotsa other ways to
> get buff. It was calisthenics for me.

Ehhh.... muscular stress = muscular stress... the muscles cant tell the
difference between body weight or weight made of iron...

>> Not counting the negative part of a snatch, where the calves hit the
>> hams,
>> when performed through an Asian female, is one of the most erotic things
>> to
>> watch...

> Shit, you're really corny. I guess that's why the Dutch have a red
> light district -- so that screwballs like you can self-quarantine!

Yes.

>> And exercise is NOT one of them!

> Sure it is. You don't have lil' prepubescent kids weight-lifting.

I did.

Pressed things overhead before the age of 10.

6 feet, whih is more than my older brothers.

> Doesn't do them any good -- and could probably cause harm.

Likw what?

>> Ever watched an 8 year old on the playground?

> The young are resilient, sure. I myself fell flat on my back from a
> height of five or six feet as a nine or ten year old. But that's no
> excuse not to exercise caution. Better safe than sorry.

Than let them exercise WITH caution!

>> Exercise = GOOD.

> Everything at the proper time. Growing bodies should stick to
> calisthenics. Achieve the same results with no worries whatsoever.
> You take identical twins, and I wouldn't be surprised if the one who
> starts weightlifting at 15-18 will prove shorter than the one who
> starts at 21, 22, even 25. By age 30, they will both be equally buff,
> but one will be taller.

Arnold started lifing heavy at 14.

Serge and Sergio even younger.

All three are not midgets,,,

--
Pete

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> Could it be that you never hear about the ones who didn't make it on
> to the team -- 'cause they're short?

Do you realize that you answered your own question, and if you claim you
didnt have a question, you contradicted yourself?

Do you?

--
Pete

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

> He doesn't seem to follow ideas too well. Jumping in basketball causes
> way more force on joints than weightlifting, as both 'Uncle Bob' and I
> pointed out. And yet basketball players are invariably tall. Could it
> have something to do with being good in their sport?

Darwin.

Its all about selection.

The East Germans know that all too well. Not to mention the Russians and
former East European countries.

And THEY have the best lifters and gymnasts! Gee... i wonder why !?!?!?

;-O

> Weightlifters have a leverage advantage if they have short arms and legs
> relative to their torso (talking olympic style weightlifers here).

BINGO !!!

> Weightlifters are generally shorter with relatively short arms and legs.
> Could it have something to do with being good in their sport?

Ehhh.... they would suck at basketball?

> Teenagers who take up bodybuilding or hypertrophy training are
> invariably short to start off with. Why indeed do you think they started
> weightlifting?

I really hope PAW answers this one...

hint:

Ectomorphs = basketball, long distance running

Endo/mesomorphs = lifting heavy stuff, sprinting

> Calisthentics is resistance training, using bodyweight. Gymnasts do tons
> of bodyweight exercise. They are also invariably short.

Yuri Van Gelder told everyone nere on national TV that being shorter in
gymnastics is advantage.

lower centre of gravity and all that...

> Should I then
> assume it is the bodyweight exercises that make them short? Or could it
> have something to do with it being easier to control a smaller mass?

Haha!

I love rhetoric.

--
Pete

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> schreef:

> Growing bodies are delicate. Serious weight-training could stunt
> eventual height.

Yeah, the Governour of California is a midget.

Dutch people are the tallest (and smartest, dwarfs are stupid...) on the
planet. We never lift weights.

Asians are short. They ALL lift heavy as teenagers.

--
Pete

On Dec 7, 2:42 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > It would matter, but you don't realize that because you don't even
> > know what you wrote or which point I was responding to.
>
> You were asking a rhetorical question. Like a little bitch, you're
> now grasping at any little straw in order to manufacture an argument.
>
> If you want to break up, just say so. I mean, I'm not forcing you to
> swallow anything.
>
> > Umm. No. You seem to have lost the plot. All I was pointing out there
> > was that yes, my observations are actual observations whereas yours
> > appear to be pulled out of some bodily orifice (and no, I don't want
> > to know which one.)
>
> Which is what I'd said: from afar, over the transom, you observe that
> my observations aren't as good as yours.
>
> Fucking brilliant. If there's proof that the female sex is
> intellectually inferior, you are it.
>
> > Your creative snipping doesn't change what I was
> > actually responding to.
>
> "Creative snipping?" Unlike you, I'm sure many observers won't have
> lost the thread of the conversation simply due to my concision.
>
> > I suggest you read all of that again, because if that's all you got
> > from it, you weren't paying very close attention the first time you
> > read it.
>
> I suggest you drop it and get a life.
>
> > A person is not a house,
>
> And an analogy is not an identity, so relax.
>
> > and it's not so easy to tease apart the
> > "foundation" from "the rest of the house."
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!!
>
> Hehehe, typical "chick logic"...tell me, are you someone's sock
> puppet, or is that simply a boot up your ass?
>
> > Do you honestly believe
> > that muscle, connective tissue, and bone are *not* part of the
> > foundation? What do you think the "foundation" of a person is?
>
> LOL! I can just imagine Hobbes serenading you...
>
> "You are the rose of my life..."
>
> "What?!?! A rose??? Something with thorns, huh!!! Something that's
> got no brain, eh!!! Just what do you take me for?!?! You honestly
> think a weak frilly petal can compare with my biceps???"
>
> > And you still don't know what you wrote.
>
> Okay, I don't know what I wrote. You know what I wrote. Because I'm
> just a figment of your over-active imagination, and none of this is
> really happening. Just step away from the keyboard, now, real nice
> and slow....
>
> > I'm plenty grown up, but I'll never get over myself. And really, I
> > don't think you want to know where the duct tape actually is.
>
> Okay, Hobbes, she's all yours, I'm done fucking around with this rainy
> day throwaway fuck....

Aww, did someone get his widdle feelings hurt? I kinda wish this were
LJ so I could use my "butthurt" icon. It's a doozy!

On Dec 7, 3:46 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yeah, the Governour of California is a midget.

Yeah, Franco Columbo is a giant.

> Dutch people are the tallest (and smartest, dwarfs are stupid...) on the
> planet. We never lift weights.

Wow, you really -- I mean, seriously -- enjoy this banter!

> Asians are short. They ALL lift heavy as teenagers.

Poor little Dutchmen. Importing Asian porn and unhappy Muslims by the
truck-load...maybe they should spend more time at the gym or
something?

> --
> Pete

See, I told everybody you would be back once you stopped crying.

On Dec 7, 3:39 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dips and pullups & pushups !?!?!?

Precisely.

> The pectorals, triceps, lats and biceps can tell that the stress they have
> to deal with is from weight made of flesh instead of iron?
>
> Really?
>
> They can do that?

The biomechanics seem to be different. Certainly, no chance of
overstressing the growing body in the same sense of heavy weights
being piled on a bar. Young guys who would be into free weights at
that age would likely be all too eager to pile on the plates.

> --
> Pete

On Dec 7, 2:58 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:39 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dips and pullups & pushups !?!?!?
>
> Precisely.
>
> > The pectorals, triceps, lats and biceps can tell that the stress they have
> > to deal with is from weight made of flesh instead of iron?
>
> > Really?
>
> > They can do that?
>
> The biomechanics seem to be different.

LOL! This is precious.

> Certainly, no chance of
> overstressing the growing body in the same sense of heavy weights
> being piled on a bar. Young guys who would be into free weights at
> that age would likely be all too eager to pile on the plates.
>

Wow! Your argument seems to have spontaneously mutated!

On Dec 7, 3:35 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> You reallu have no expertise or even background knowledge about what you
> are talking about.

I've never claimed to be an expert, unlike you -- but I know you're
not God, so maybe you could do with a little humility, all the same.

> You were unaware of what lifts were contested in
> weightlfiting as compared to powerlifting.

Wow, that's like saying someone isn't American because he didn't know
what the capital of Montana is.

Please, go back to school. Ask for the "Logic 101" course.

> --
> Keith

On Dec 7, 3:17 pm, "Uncle Bob" <unclebobru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Do you realize that you answered your own question, and if you claim you
> didnt have a question, you contradicted yourself?
>
> Do you?
>
> --
> Pete


Do you realize that that isn't my question?

Do you??

In article
<77f431d8-edd1-4218-931c-8f58d5a8abf2@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
geek_girl <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 2:42 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > It would matter, but you don't realize that because you don't even
> > > know what you wrote or which point I was responding to.
> >
> > You were asking a rhetorical question. Like a little bitch, you're
> > now grasping at any little straw in order to manufacture an argument.
> >
> > If you want to break up, just say so. I mean, I'm not forcing you to
> > swallow anything.
> >
> > > Umm. No. You seem to have lost the plot. All I was pointing out there
> > > was that yes, my observations are actual observations whereas yours
> > > appear to be pulled out of some bodily orifice (and no, I don't want
> > > to know which one.)
> >
> > Which is what I'd said: from afar, over the transom, you observe that
> > my observations aren't as good as yours.
> >
> > Fucking brilliant. If there's proof that the female sex is
> > intellectually inferior, you are it.
> >
> > > Your creative snipping doesn't change what I was
> > > actually responding to.
> >
> > "Creative snipping?" Unlike you, I'm sure many observers won't have
> > lost the thread of the conversation simply due to my concision.
> >
> > > I suggest you read all of that again, because if that's all you got
> > > from it, you weren't paying very close attention the first time you
> > > read it.
> >
> > I suggest you drop it and get a life.
> >
> > > A person is not a house,
> >
> > And an analogy is not an identity, so relax.
> >
> > > and it's not so easy to tease apart the
> > > "foundation" from "the rest of the house."
> >
> > ROTFLMFAO!!!
> >
> > Hehehe, typical "chick logic"...tell me, are you someone's sock
> > puppet, or is that simply a boot up your ass?
> >
> > > Do you honestly believe
> > > that muscle, connective tissue, and bone are *not* part of the
> > > foundation? What do you think the "foundation" of a person is?
> >
> > LOL! I can just imagine Hobbes serenading you...
> >
> > "You are the rose of my life..."
> >
> > "What?!?! A rose??? Something with thorns, huh!!! Something that's
> > got no brain, eh!!! Just what do you take me for?!?! You honestly
> > think a weak frilly petal can compare with my biceps???"
> >
> > > And you still don't know what you wrote.
> >
> > Okay, I don't know what I wrote. You know what I wrote. Because I'm
> > just a figment of your over-active imagination, and none of this is
> > really happening. Just step away from the keyboard, now, real nice
> > and slow....
> >
> > > I'm plenty grown up, but I'll never get over myself. And really, I
> > > don't think you want to know where the duct tape actually is.
> >
> > Okay, Hobbes, she's all yours, I'm done fucking around with this rainy
> > day throwaway fuck....
>
> Aww, did someone get his widdle feelings hurt? I kinda wish this were
> LJ so I could use my "butthurt" icon. It's a doozy!

Yeah. Well, apparently he can add sexism to racist and homophobic (why
do those always seem to go together?).

What gets me is he keeps saying the jury is out. It isn't. It has been
studied. There is no tangible evidence weightlifting - either as the
sport or as bodybuilding - causes premature fusion of epiphyseal plates
or more correctly, epiphysial arrest. And it has been studied. There is
a mechanism for steroid use causing epiphysial arrest. If there was a
mechanism for weightlifting to cause epiphysial arrest it would have to
be related to the amount of force the plate is loaded with. Yet in
activities which create far more force on the joint (such as jumping in
basketball) there is once again no evidence of epiphysial arrest.

Do I agree that children have no compelling reason to be in the
weightroom? Yes, I do agree with that - unless they want to. But if they
do, there is nothing wrong with it provided they are supervised for
technique. I think the bigger issue is supervision and making sure
young, testosterone driven teenagers don't use the weightroom to compete
using crappy technique every workout. Of course, by the same logic
anyone interested in weightlifting should be taught proper technique.

--
Keith

On Dec 7, 3:05 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 3:35 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You reallu have no expertise or even background knowledge about what you
> > are talking about.
>
> I've never claimed to be an expert, unlike you -- but I know you're
> not God, so maybe you could do with a little humility, all the same.

He's not God, but he *is* an expert.

>
> > You were unaware of what lifts were contested in
> > weightlfiting as compared to powerlifting.
>
> Wow, that's like saying someone isn't American because he didn't know
> what the capital of Montana is.

No, no it's not. Analogy really isn't your forte. But please, keep
trying. Your attempts amuse me.

> Please, go back to school. Ask for the "Logic 101" course.

Mmm, this irony is delicious! And there's plenty for everyone.

In article
<930f203c-50af-4a40-b6ad-3f730c668534@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 3:35 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > You reallu have no expertise or even background knowledge about what you
> > are talking about.
>
> I've never claimed to be an expert, unlike you -- but I know you're
> not God, so maybe you could do with a little humility, all the same.

My expertise doesn't reside in deity - it does reside in a Bachelor of
Science in Kinesiology (Honours). (Well, actually soon to be - I'm two
classes away.)
>
> > You were unaware of what lifts were contested in
> > weightlfiting as compared to powerlifting.
>
> Wow, that's like saying someone isn't American because he didn't know
> what the capital of Montana is.
>
> Please, go back to school. Ask for the "Logic 101" course.

Already taken it. The Bachelor of Science is my second degree. You on
the other hand don't seem to understand that I was accusing you of being
ignorant, not being illogical.

Having said that - I'm done with this thread and PAW. I see no point in
suffering a fool any longer.

--
Keith

On Dec 7, 3:10 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <77f431d8-edd1-4218-931c-8f58d5a8a...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 2:42 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It would matter, but you don't realize that because you don't even
> > > > know what you wrote or which point I was responding to.
>
> > > You were asking a rhetorical question. Like a little bitch, you're
> > > now grasping at any little straw in order to manufacture an argument.
>
> > > If you want to break up, just say so. I mean, I'm not forcing you to
> > > swallow anything.
>
> > > > Umm. No. You seem to have lost the plot. All I was pointing out there
> > > > was that yes, my observations are actual observations whereas yours
> > > > appear to be pulled out of some bodily orifice (and no, I don't want
> > > > to know which one.)
>
> > > Which is what I'd said: from afar, over the transom, you observe that
> > > my observations aren't as good as yours.
>
> > > Fucking brilliant. If there's proof that the female sex is
> > > intellectually inferior, you are it.
>
> > > > Your creative snipping doesn't change what I was
> > > > actually responding to.
>
> > > "Creative snipping?" Unlike you, I'm sure many observers won't have
> > > lost the thread of the conversation simply due to my concision.
>
> > > > I suggest you read all of that again, because if that's all you got
> > > > from it, you weren't paying very close attention the first time you
> > > > read it.
>
> > > I suggest you drop it and get a life.
>
> > > > A person is not a house,
>
> > > And an analogy is not an identity, so relax.
>
> > > > and it's not so easy to tease apart the
> > > > "foundation" from "the rest of the house."
>
> > > ROTFLMFAO!!!
>
> > > Hehehe, typical "chick logic"...tell me, are you someone's sock
> > > puppet, or is that simply a boot up your ass?
>
> > > > Do you honestly believe
> > > > that muscle, connective tissue, and bone are *not* part of the
> > > > foundation? What do you think the "foundation" of a person is?
>
> > > LOL! I can just imagine Hobbes serenading you...
>
> > > "You are the rose of my life..."
>
> > > "What?!?! A rose??? Something with thorns, huh!!! Something that's
> > > got no brain, eh!!! Just what do you take me for?!?! You honestly
> > > think a weak frilly petal can compare with my biceps???"
>
> > > > And you still don't know what you wrote.
>
> > > Okay, I don't know what I wrote. You know what I wrote. Because I'm
> > > just a figment of your over-active imagination, and none of this is
> > > really happening. Just step away from the keyboard, now, real nice
> > > and slow....
>
> > > > I'm plenty grown up, but I'll never get over myself. And really, I
> > > > don't think you want to know where the duct tape actually is.
>
> > > Okay, Hobbes, she's all yours, I'm done fucking around with this rainy
> > > day throwaway fuck....
>
> > Aww, did someone get his widdle feelings hurt? I kinda wish this were
> > LJ so I could use my "butthurt" icon. It's a doozy!
>
> Yeah. Well, apparently he can add sexism to racist and homophobic (why
> do those always seem to go together?).

I would explain why they go together, but unfortunately, my
explanation would be expressed in "chick logic" and would therefore be
incomprehensible to anyone with a penis. Of course, that doesn't
explain why PaW doesn't understand my chick logic.

> What gets me is he keeps saying the jury is out. It isn't. It has been
> studied. There is no tangible evidence weightlifting - either as the
> sport or as bodybuilding - causes premature fusion of epiphyseal plates
> or more correctly, epiphysial arrest. And it has been studied.

But the study results don't match his preconceptions, so they must be
invalid!

> There is
> a mechanism for steroid use causing epiphysial arrest. If there was a
> mechanism for weightlifting to cause epiphysial arrest it would have to
> be related to the amount of force the plate is loaded with. Yet in
> activities which create far more force on the joint (such as jumping in
> basketball) there is once again no evidence of epiphysial arrest.

But according to PaW, iron weight is somehow "different".

> Do I agree that children have no compelling reason to be in the
> weightroom? Yes, I do agree with that - unless they want to. But if they
> do, there is nothing wrong with it provided they are supervised for
> technique. I think the bigger issue is supervision and making sure
> young, testosterone driven teenagers don't use the weightroom to compete
> using crappy technique every workout. Of course, by the same logic
> anyone interested in weightlifting should be taught proper technique.

For me, you're preaching to the choir. In his case, it's more like
banging your head against a brick wall. He'll never understand any of
this, because he doesn't want to.

In article
<9c2a7fec-7ceb-4f5e-abb2-4a21ce0effe6@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
geek_girl <sarah.brilliant@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 7, 3:10 pm, Hobbes <khobman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <77f431d8-edd1-4218-931c-8f58d5a8a...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 7, 2:42 pm, Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 7, 3:26 pm, geek_girl <sarah.brilli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > It would matter, but you don't realize that because you don't even
> > > > > know what you wrote or which point I was responding to.
> >
> > > > You were asking a rhetorical question. Like a little bitch, you're
> > > > now grasping at any little straw in order to manufacture an argument.
> >
> > > > If you want to break up, just say so. I mean, I'm not forcing you to
> > > > swallow anything.
> >
> > > > > Umm. No. You seem to have lost the plot. All I was pointing out there
> > > > > was that yes, my observations are actual observations whereas yours
> > > > > appear to be pulled out of some bodily orifice (and no, I don't want
> > > > > to know which one.)
> >
> > > > Which is what I'd said: from afar, over the transom, you observe that
> > > > my observations aren't as good as yours.
> >
> > > > Fucking brilliant. If there's proof that the female sex is
> > > > intellectually inferior, you are it.