or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Lunges: Pick your poison
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lunges: Pick your poison - Page 3

post #31 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by beasty View Post
Oh really? so is he some Alien-human hybrid or animal-human hybrid.

aren't all imaginauts?
post #32 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by beasty View Post
What is your evidence Ronnie are on those things? If not, you are doing a great disservice to the sport, the man, his hardwork and his legion of fans.

I would also point out IFBB strenously drug test competitors in Mr Olympia and have stripped competitors who failed the tests even medalists. I would think Ronnie being repeated champ (on par with the great Lee) would be tested more vigorously since he was competiting and beating men younger than him.

Hence unless you have iron clad proof, an apology to Ronnie, IFBB and Ronnie's fans is in order.

Wow.
post #33 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Cheetahs run over 50mph, therefore if you want to run faster you need to get down on all fours and hunt gazelles.
So Ronnie is a different species from his competitors now?
post #34 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvibes View Post
So Ronnie is a different species from his competitors now?

To those who place mental and physical blocks on themselves, who dont train balls to the walls, who think spindly legs and big upper body is a good physique, who is allergic to hard work, Ronnie would seem to be as alien as Superman to Jimmy Olsen.
post #35 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvibes View Post
So Ronnie is a different species from his competitors now?
The argument of lunges making Ronnie Coleman a winner is about as faulty as saying saying eating big meals of pasta isn't bad for you because Italians have the lowest BMI (or cheetahs run fast because they hunt gazelles); the causality simply isn't there.
post #36 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
The argument of lunges making Ronnie Coleman a winner is about as faulty as saying saying eating big meals of pasta isn't bad for you because Italians have the lowest BMI (or cheetahs run fast because they hunt gazelles); the causality simply isn't there.

NO one said doing lunges made Ronnie or anyone else a winner.
I said Ronnie popularised it, which can be shown by other bodybuilders incorporating this in their workout.

It just so happens Ronnie became a winner. Based on that, are you saying if you drank the same milk Ronnie drinks, you would be a winner too?

Your leap of logic and failed attempt to logicised my points shows you lack causality yourself. Left to your own devices, you would be wearing skin tight thongs thinking it would make you a bodybuilder since all Mr Olympia wears them.
post #37 of 190
It's comforting to know that we can always count on beasty to miss the point in awe-inspiring fashion.

Right now, I'm trying to figure out what it means that why lacks causality. Either it means that he is without cause, which would make him God, or it means that he is completely separate from the entire universal chain of causation, which leads me to wonder, how on earth did he type out his response?
post #38 of 190
[quote=Saucemaster;962785]It's comforting to know that we can always count on beasty to teach us what is true bodybuilding that works and is aesthetically pleasing not unlike Michaelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel and make a lucid, cogent, precise and outstanding argument in awe-inspiring fashion.

/QUOTE]

Thanks for the compliment.

It's comforting to know that we can always count on you to make sweeping statements and be utterly clueless awe-inspiringly.
post #39 of 190
Do you realize that you actually REITERATED why's point in the guise of disagreeing with him? You attributed a view to him that was the exact OPPOSITE of what he said.

You have problems, child. With your reading comprehension, the internet is not the medium for you.
post #40 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saucemaster View Post
Do you realize that you actually REITERATED why's point in the guise of disagreeing with him? You attributed a view to him that was the exact OPPOSITE of what he said.

You have problems, child. With your reading comprehension, the internet is not the medium for you.

You do realise I have clarified with why and explained how his statement is totally erroneous and his conclusions misconceived since I did not state what he claimed to be the case.

My post in rebuttal by presenting a point in direct opposition to his exposes how wrong he is. Anyone with a bare modicum of intelligence would have caught on to it and marvel at my witty retort and utter demolition of why just like all bodybuilders marvel at the size and muscle density of Jay and how he demolishes the weights in the gym and rival competitors.

You obviously dont read nor comprehend well. I only hope your failures does not translate to your bodybuilding efforts.
post #41 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by beasty View Post
My post in rebuttal by presenting a point in direct opposition to his exposes how wrong he is. Anyone with a bare modicum of intelligence would have caught on to it and marvel at my witty retort and utter demolition of why just like all bodybuilders marvel at the size and muscle density of Jay and how he demolishes the weights in the gym and rival competitors.

My God man, you really are dense.

Let's break it down for you.

Why says, "You said (X). That logic is flawed."

You say, "I never said X! What if I were to say (Y) [the reader will note that Y shares the exact same logical flaws as X]? That's flawed logic!"

In other words, you just AGREED with why. All in the guise of disagreeing with him. Yes, reiterating and agreeing with my opponent, and even providing him with alternate examples of the exact point he was making in the first place, surely constitutes an impressive rebuttal!

Seriously, stop for a second, READ what why wrote and what you wrote, then think. I know it hurts, but try it anyway. Would Jay give up on his last set of squats just because it hurt? NO! So be an imaginaut and push through it. Soon, you will see the error of your ways.



QED.
post #42 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
The argument of lunges making Ronnie Coleman a winner is about as faulty as saying saying eating big meals of pasta isn't bad for you because Italians have the lowest BMI (or cheetahs run fast because they hunt gazelles); the causality simply isn't there.
I never said lunges made Ronnie Coleman a winner. I just said:
Quote:
Even if true, it's highly likely that his competitors were also on HGH, test, and roids, yet Ronnie still managed to win 8 consecutive Mr. Olympias, meaning that Ronnie does something better than everyone else (or has better genetics than everyone else)
There has to be something that makes Ronnie better than his competitors, right?
post #43 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvibes View Post
There has to be something that makes Ronnie better than his competitors, right?

Yeah...so what's your point? That's like saying the team that scores the most points in football will win.

No shit.

Stop playing stupid.
post #44 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by why View Post
Yeah...so what's your point? That's like saying the team that scores the most points in football will win.

No shit.

Stop playing stupid.
Keep on knocking down strawmen there...
post #45 of 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvibes View Post
Keep on knocking down strawmen there...

You're pretty fucking bad at arguing, let alone on the Internet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Health & Body
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Health & Body › Lunges: Pick your poison