Forum For What?

Off Topic
1

Wow! Was I ever wrong!

I saw a thread about Dave Tate and bulking:
http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1344445&pageNo=0

Intrigued I took a look and read something that I was impelled to post a response to. Basically I saw a glaring flaw of reasoning and tried to post a reply to discuss it.

Baaaad idea! I was mistakenly thinking that a public forum would be used by people who enjoy debating points as an exercise to further each person’s understanding of their beliefs. Talk about naive!

There was a couple of people that responded with good posts, they had an argument consisting of one or more premises and a conclusion that made me think. The rest were clear examples of people posting, without a clue of what they were responding to. I also got some PMs of support with a theme suggesting that this isn’t the place for intelligent discussion.

Why post people? What is the reason to post anything?

When we are on a forum, all we have are opinions and ideas. We have nothing else! Take a look at your screen, what do you see? Words right! We don’t see proof of any claim, we don’t see a person, we see only words.

A few posters responded that anyone who was smaller than they had no business posting. First, that is just silly, if that were the case, there would be no need for a forum. All that would be needed is a hierarchy of size listed and a rule of moderation not allowing anyone to ask a question to anyone who wasn’t bigger than they, or make a post unless they were the biggest poster there.

Isn’t Stan more developed than Thibs by the way? Food for thought. Second, we cannot verify anyone’s claims. Period. Everyone is 7’8" weighing 440 pounds ripped. I think having the ability to post stats in our profiles is more problem than solution.

All that we really have is reasoning a priori. What would happen if we all simply read a post and evaluated the message? We’d spend a lot more time learning, that is what. Some ideas would suck, some would be great, most would be in between, but we’d all get ahead faster with cooperation, that is for shit sure.

Those who have been there would be challenged to explain their ideas; this greatly benefits them. It also benefits the less experienced. Those with less experience may ask a novel question that makes us all think in new ways. BAMM! breakthrough for all of us.

If we continue to do nothing but have pissing contests, it is all of us who lose.

What is this great forum of ours for?

Roland

2

By the way, I appologize for getting frusterated and lowering myself to the level I did in that bulking thread.

There is no reason to care about personal attacks, much less make them.

Roland

3

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
A few posters responded that anyone who was smaller than they had no business posting.[/quote]

That wasn’t what was written to you at all. Specifically, the weight range “below 160lbs” was thrown out, but it was in clear relation to people WHO HAVE LITTLE TO NO MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT yet feel the need to share all of their knowledge. Obviously some shorter competitor who was very muscular yet competes in the 160lbs class wouldn’t fit into that category. Did that really need to be spelled out for you?

[quote]
Isn’t Stan more developed than Thibs by the way? Food for thought. Second, we cannot verify anyone’s claims. Period. Everyone is 7’8" weighing 440 pounds ripped. I think having the ability to post stats in our profiles is more problem than solution.[/quote]

Many of us have posted our pics on this forum. I don’t believe many stats from anyone unless they have posted some sort of picture with it and their advice matches their professed training age.

[quote]
All that we really have is reasoning a priori.[/quote]

False. read above. You’re the new guy. You haven’t posted your pic here and not too many people have even debated with you. Whoever wrote to you that this was not the place for intelligent debate comes across as one of those embittered skinny guys who is mad because people aren’t taking biceps training advice from someone with 12" arms.

And, without any attempt to separate the pure talkers from the doers, there would be pages and pages of useless mental masturbation from even the tiniest and least developed people with internet access.

4

Good points, I can respect what you’re saying Professor.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
A few posters responded that anyone who was smaller than they had no business posting.

That wasn’t what was written to you at all. Specifically, the weight range “below 160lbs” was thrown out, but it was in clear relation to people WHO HAVE LITTLE TO NO MUSCULAR DEVELOPMENT yet feel the need to share all of their knowledge. Obviously some shorter competitor who was very muscular yet competes in the 160lbs class wouldn’t fit into that category. Did that really need to be spelled out for you?
[/quote]I didn’t, it wasn’t you that made the implication that anyone smaller should butt out, but my point still remains that size is not proof of a valid point or not. Size equals experience, experience is king, but a good thought is still a good thought none the less.[quote]

Isn’t Stan more developed than Thibs by the way? Food for thought. Second, we cannot verify anyone’s claims. Period. Everyone is 7’8" weighing 440 pounds ripped. I think having the ability to post stats in our profiles is more problem than solution.

Many of us have posted our pics on this forum. I don’t believe many stats from anyone unless they have posted some sort of picture with it and their advice matches their professed training age.
[/quote]Agreed, claims without pics are useless. However pics are not proof, they add credibility, but only slightly. I’ve seen your pics, you are clearly a beast. I believe it is you; your advice here backs it up. But it still doesn’t make or break an argument, only reason does.[quote]

All that we really have is reasoning a priori.

False. read above. You’re the new guy. You haven’t posted your pic here and not too many people have even debated with you. Whoever wrote to you that this was not the place for intelligent debate comes across as one of those embittered skinny guys who is mad because people aren’t taking biceps training advice from someone with 12" arms.

[/quote]We can disagree here without conflict I think. Even if reason isn’t all we have, it is still the most compelling. As for the quality of PMs, it doesn’t matter too much to me (they were very experienced by the way), it does speak to the fact that others share my frustration.[quote]

What would happen if we all simply read a post and evaluated the message? We’d spend a lot more time learning, that is what. Some ideas would suck, some would be great, most would be in between, but we’d all get ahead faster with cooperation, that is for shit sure.

And, without any attempt to separate the pure talkers from the doers, there would be pages and pages of useless mental masturbation from even the tiniest and least developed people with internet access.
[/quote]

I can disagree with this one too, if an argument is good, it is good, if it can clearly be rebutted the BS is revealed rather fast. I think that many of these threads are still full of mental masturbation, so current efforts may reduce it, but it still is the norm rather than the exception.

If someone makes a bullshit claim, it should be easy to call bullshit with valid reasoning. You did it with me; your point that gaining mass is not linear really made me think. I’ve had great success, but perhaps it could have been better. I replied good point because I had no valid reason to rebut your statement, that doesn’t however take away from the half dozen other points I made that had no one rebut.

Your posts are the stuff I’m looking for, it makes me think, and as much as thinking may be frowned upon here by some, if it wasn’t for thinking, we’d not even have T-Nation in the fist place.

Roland.

5

Well, I looked at that thread for about five seconds and my eyes glazed over.

There is no need to become emotionaly invested in getting your point across in these forums. People disagree.

Get over it.

6

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Well, I looked at that thread for about five seconds and my eyes glazed over.

There is no need to become emotionaly invested in getting your point across in these forums. People disagree.

Get over it.

[/quote]

Well put.

7

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Well, I looked at that thread for about five seconds and my eyes glazed over.

There is no need to become emotionaly invested in getting your point across in these forums. People disagree.

Get over it.
[/quote]

This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about, you posted a response to a thread without reading it, it adds no value.

You aren’t even on point and would know that if you had read before posting. First, there was no emotional content until the very last posts. Second, I already addressed the need to keep emotion out of it above, making your post redundant.

8

So you posted in that thread, got a whole bunch of replies you didn’t like, and then thought you would start this one?

As was pointed out in that thread, the anecdotal evidence provided by people who actually are bigger than average should not be dismissed by a bunch of well read, yet totally inexperienced scrawny internet warriors.

The few people I know who ever got to be huge, got a bit lardy in the process and then lost the fat afterwards. That is what I am also doing.

9

[quote]The Beast wrote:
So you posted in that thread, got a whole bunch of replies you didn’t like, and then thought you would start this one?

As was pointed out in that thread, the anecdotal evidence provided by people who actually are bigger than average should not be dismissed by a bunch of well read, yet totally inexperienced scrawny internet warriors.

The few people I know who ever got to be huge, got a bit lardy in the process and then lost the fat afterwards. That is what I am also doing.[/quote]

Sure, no argument here. Not on topic however. I posted this to point out and discuss that these forums could be really powerful exchanges if we evaluated a posts merits with reason.

Clearly I’m not doing this to be popular, in fact I’m pretty sure that this will accomplish the opposite, again, not on point. I’m curious if any or many people will respond on point with a valid argument. So far, only Professor X has.

10

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Well, I looked at that thread for about five seconds and my eyes glazed over.

There is no need to become emotionaly invested in getting your point across in these forums. People disagree.

Get over it.

This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about, you posted a response to a thread without reading it, it adds no value.

You aren’t even on point and would know that if you had read before posting. First, there was no emotional content until the very last posts. Second, I already addressed the need to keep emotion out of it above, making your post redundant.[/quote]

No, this is not a perfect example. I am responding to this topic in this thread.

It is on point.

You are the one who seems to have become confused as to the point.

Unless you are simply restarting in a different thread, same topic, different title. In which case, you missed the mark on titling the thread.

Also, starting a new thread after getting your ass handed to you is a classic Twat maneuver.

11

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
No, this is not a perfect example. I am responding to this topic in this thread.

It is on point.
[/quote]The point is in discussing the potential of responding to a post with reason and how powerful that could be. There is even a direct question asking what are these forums for? You didn’t address this at all.[quote]

You are the one who seems to have become confused as to the point.

Unless you are simply restarting in a different thread, same topic, different title. In which case, you missed the mark on titling the thread.

Also, starting a new thread after getting your ass handed to you is a classic Twat maneuver.
[/quote]

Huh? My ass did not get handed to me, and even if it did, your statement is nonsense. Please don’t get derogatory.

Your posts so far have been meaningless.

12

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
Well, I looked at that thread for about five seconds and my eyes glazed over.

There is no need to become emotionaly invested in getting your point across in these forums. People disagree.

Get over it.

This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about, you posted a response to a thread without reading it, it adds no value.

You aren’t even on point and would know that if you had read before posting. First, there was no emotional content until the very last posts. Second, I already addressed the need to keep emotion out of it above, making your post redundant.[/quote]

Get over it.

13

Have you had your testosterone levels checked? You sound like a woman. An old nagging one.

14

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Get over it.[/quote]

I am; just wondering if there are any crtical thinkers… so far one.

15

[quote]big balls wrote:
Have you had your testosterone levels checked? You sound like a woman. An old nagging one.[/quote]

I should do that… 36… good idea. Nothing to do with the thread, but good idea.

There is no sound on your screen, they are displayed words, so maybe I write like an old nagging woman.

16

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Get over it.

I am; just wondering if there are any crtical thinkers… so far one.[/quote]

Don’t flatter yourself. We have been through this bullshit countless times.

17

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Get over it.

I am; just wondering if there are any crtical thinkers… so far one.

Don’t flatter yourself. We have been through this bullshit countless times.[/quote]

The one I mentioned wasn’t myself, it was Professor X, he posted well. If you’ve been through it countless times, it seems then that the people who can post valid points don’t. That is just a waste then.

18

What’s with your hard-on for “reason” and “critical thinking”? If you’re looking for that type of thing, you should visit a philosophy forum.

Do you think people care if you think they use reason or critical thinking? Maybe they’d rather take a shit than read through your posts and agree with you. Some people like thinking, some people don’t…give it up. No one is forcing you to be here, and no one needs your approval for anything.

19

[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Get over it.

I am; just wondering if there are any crtical thinkers… so far one.

Don’t flatter yourself. We have been through this bullshit countless times.

The one I mentioned wasn’t myself, it was Professor X, he posted well. If you’ve been through it countless times, it seems then that the people who can post valid points don’t. That is just a waste then.[/quote]

What Zap is referring to is the old bulk/lean bulk arguement.

It has been worked to death over the years.

So, to add domething of substance, I will agree with some study that was conducted by some scientists by saying-

For optimal gains, most people have to be over 10% fat mass. This is my observation of what has worked for me and several other people that I lift with. Trying to stay very lean while building muscle is very difficult.

20

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Get over it.

I am; just wondering if there are any crtical thinkers… so far one.

Don’t flatter yourself. We have been through this bullshit countless times.

The one I mentioned wasn’t myself, it was Professor X, he posted well. If you’ve been through it countless times, it seems then that the people who can post valid points don’t. That is just a waste then.

What Zap is referring to is the old bulk/lean bulk arguement.

It has been worked to death over the years.

So, to add domething of substance, I will agree with some study that was conducted by some scientists by saying-

For optimal gains, most people have to be over 10% fat mass. This is my observation of what has worked for me and several other people that I lift with. Trying to stay very lean while building muscle is very difficult.
[/quote]

Agreed 100%. That was what I was looking for on the other thread, a simple response that makes sense. I’m really not trying to be a dick, in this thread I’m just bringing up that without good discussion the forums seem pointless, and by doing so I’m a dick by default.

I’ve read some of your past posts, I know you have lots to offer, it’s just rare that we see much in the way of constructive argument/discussion and I’m sort of rudely pointing that out in the hopes that some may think long enough to see how ridiculous it can get.

Ps. the sarcasm is duely noted by the way, what I was agreeing with is your observation of what works.