[quote]Dr Stig wrote:
A coach should at least look the part. Sort of like nutritionists should not be fat, maybe thats not PC, I dunno ?!
Its like going to an office job in a suit, its an expectation or it infers you might be ok. The person who does not look that part is off to a bad start.[/quote]
The only reason anyone would argue that, is if they clearly don’t look the part and haven’t actually made much physical progress themselves. You have to wonder why so many people like that suddenly want to be recognized for all of their “training knowledge”.
[quote]Dr Stig wrote:
A coach should at least look the part. Sort of like nutritionists should not be fat, maybe that’s not PC, I dunno ?!
Its like going to an office job in a suit, its an expectation or it infers you might be ok. The person who does not look that part is off to a bad start.[/quote]
I agree on the office job analogy, a trainer should look the part. We cannot see the writer of these posts, all we can see is the screen. The fact that I admit I’m a crippled has been didn’t have to happen. I could have made some great photo-shopped pictures of myself just huge. All that we can know about a post is the post itself, nothing more.
“I was here first, I’m huge, look at me, worship me, don’t post anything contrary, you are shit because you’re not me” Is what I’ve heard as the most prevalent argument against my claim that a post should stand on it’s own. Except a few, Prof X, Modi, Sasquatch, Tiribulus, etc. Who made good points, this has been a shit show.
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
Note: CaliforniaLaw sure didn’t like my posts, he seemed rather provoked. I wonder what he means by the profession he lists in his profile? Sucker!
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
Note: CaliforniaLaw sure didn’t like my posts, he seemed rather provoked. I wonder what he means by the profession he lists in his profile? Sucker!
[/quote]
You are a goof ball.
Your m.o. is duly noted, and will be taken into consideration in future posts.
Good luck getting a point across if you ever do have one.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Dr Stig wrote:
A coach should at least look the part. Sort of like nutritionists should not be fat, maybe thats not PC, I dunno ?!
Its like going to an office job in a suit, its an expectation or it infers you might be ok. The person who does not look that part is off to a bad start.
The only reason anyone would argue that, is if they clearly don’t look the part and haven’t actually made much physical progress themselves. You have to wonder why so many people like that suddenly want to be recognized for all of their “training knowledge”.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
[/quote]
So rainjack was correct all along.
rainjack: “But it’s no big thing - you will be gone very soon, just like all the rest of the non-training know-it-alls.”
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Dr Stig wrote:
A coach should at least look the part. Sort of like nutritionists should not be fat, maybe that’s not PC, I dunno ?!
Its like going to an office job in a suit, its an expectation or it infers you might be ok. The person who does not look that part is off to a bad start.
I agree on the office job analogy, a trainer should look the part. We cannot see the writer of these posts, all we can see is the screen. The fact that I admit I’m a crippled has been didn’t have to happen. I could have made some great photo-shopped pictures of myself just huge. All that we can know about a post is the post itself, nothing more.
“I was here first, I’m huge, look at me, worship me, don’t post anything contrary, you are shit because you’re not me” Is what I’ve heard as the most prevalent argument against my claim that a post should stand on it’s own. Except a few, Prof X, Modi, Sasquatch, Tiribulus, etc. Who made good points, this has been a shit show.[/quote]
I don’t think you are thinking laterally. For instance i’ve posted stuff in the past and people have said yeah ok that makes sense and then asked questions about it. I don’t think its got to do with what one looks like unless you are saying something that is either incorrect or of no benefit.
I have noticed when people have asked for advice, they don’t want to know the truth. So the question is, why ask ?
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
Note: CaliforniaLaw sure didn’t like my posts, he seemed rather provoked. I wonder what he means by the profession he lists in his profile? Sucker!
[/quote]
So when did Actuarial science spill over into the realms of Sociology and Psychology ?
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
Note: CaliforniaLaw sure didn’t like my posts, he seemed rather provoked. I wonder what he means by the profession he lists in his profile? Sucker!
You are a goof ball.
Your m.o. is duly noted, and will be taken into consideration in future posts.
Good luck getting a point across if you ever do have one.
[/quote]
All I’d need to do is re-register, you are brilliant aren’t you.
[quote]unearth wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
So rainjack was correct all along.
rainjack: “But it’s no big thing - you will be gone very soon, just like all the rest of the non-training know-it-alls.”[/quote]
I’ve been here since day one, longer than rainjack. I’ve also said that I’d be making normal, occasional posts from now on, I didn’t say leaving. Can you actually read?
[quote]Dr Stig wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Dr Stig wrote:
A coach should at least look the part. Sort of like nutritionists should not be fat, maybe that’s not PC, I dunno ?!
Its like going to an office job in a suit, its an expectation or it infers you might be ok. The person who does not look that part is off to a bad start.
I agree on the office job analogy, a trainer should look the part. We cannot see the writer of these posts, all we can see is the screen. The fact that I admit I’m a crippled has been didn’t have to happen. I could have made some great photo-shopped pictures of myself just huge. All that we can know about a post is the post itself, nothing more.
“I was here first, I’m huge, look at me, worship me, don’t post anything contrary, you are shit because you’re not me” Is what I’ve heard as the most prevalent argument against my claim that a post should stand on it’s own. Except a few, Prof X, Modi, Sasquatch, Tiribulus, etc. Who made good points, this has been a shit show.
I don’t think you are thinking laterally. For instance i’ve posted stuff in the past and people have said yeah ok that makes sense and then asked questions about it. I don’t think its got to do with what one looks like unless you are saying something that is either incorrect or of no benefit.
I have noticed when people have asked for advice, they don’t want to know the truth. So the question is, why ask ?[/quote]
[quote]Dr Stig wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
Note: CaliforniaLaw sure didn’t like my posts, he seemed rather provoked. I wonder what he means by the profession he lists in his profile? Sucker!
So when did Actuarial science spill over into the realms of Sociology and Psychology ? [/quote]
I doesn’t, but you know Universities, we can’t just study one thing. I’m quite into those topics for this past semester.
I do note the sarcasm, but this was actually spawn from influences from a class. I was really bored at work and was reading my text when I got the idea to simply post logical responses that came across as different than the norm. I didn’t actually post anything contrary to what I believe, I only experimented with the delivery. The observation was directed at how quickly people would get an emotional response without directly provoking them… well, a gray area there.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
Dr Stig wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
Well that’s all folks!
Truth: I’ve experimented on you all this whole time because I was bored at work. The days won’t be this lazy for months to come after this, so I won’t have time to push buttons, only normal, occasional posts from here on out.
Note: CaliforniaLaw sure didn’t like my posts, he seemed rather provoked. I wonder what he means by the profession he lists in his profile? Sucker!
So when did Actuarial science spill over into the realms of Sociology and Psychology ?
I doesn’t, but you know Universities, we can’t just study one thing. I’m quite into those topics for this past semester.
I do note the sarcasm, but this was actually spawn from influences from a class. I was really bored at work and was reading my text when I got the idea to simply post logical responses that came across as different than the norm. I didn’t actually post anything contrary to what I believe, I only experimented with the delivery. The observation was directed at how quickly people would get an emotional response without directly provoking them… well, a gray area there.
Roland.[/quote]
Well the replies to your posts may have come across with emotion but I doubt anyone really gives a fuck. This is the internet, people are here mainly because they are bored. You too it seems.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
I’ve been here since day one, longer than rainjack. I’ve also said that I’d be making normal, occasional posts from now on, I didn’t say leaving. Can you actually read?
[/quote]
I’ll try to hone my reading skills during your temporary hiatus.
I can hardly wait to read future posts from your obviously deep well of lifting knowledge.
Good luck on reaching your lofty goal of benching 275 for four reps.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
All I’d need to do is re-register, you are brilliant aren’t you.
[/quote]
Your type is easy to recognize. Anyway, you never answered my arguments. You “freely admit that [you] don’t know how most jacked guys got there.” In light of this, why do you feel qualified to discuss how to get jacked? You have no clue what works. Yet you want to talk.
That pretty much says all that needs to be said about you.
[quote]Roland Fisher wrote:
I’ve been here since day one, longer than rainjack. I’ve also said that I’d be making normal, occasional posts from now on, I didn’t say leaving. Can you actually read?
[/quote]
Your join date says otherwise. Pardon me if I don’t take you at your word.
But you will indeed prove me right. You will leave.
You have proven yourself to be an even bigger bitch than even I could have hoped for. You have zero credibility. And - unless you come back as a totally different persona - your bitch funk will stay with you and identify you as the little not training skinny-fat dumbass you have proven yourself to be currently.
[quote]unearth wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
I’ve been here since day one, longer than rainjack. I’ve also said that I’d be making normal, occasional posts from now on, I didn’t say leaving. Can you actually read?
I’ll try to hone my reading skills during your temporary hiatus.
I can hardly wait to read future posts from your obviously deep well of lifting knowledge.
Good luck on reaching your lofty goal of benching 275 for four reps.[/quote]
Thank you, it will be a struggle considering I cannot do a pushup now.
[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
All I’d need to do is re-register, you are brilliant aren’t you.
Your type is easy to recognize. Anyway, you never answered my arguments. You “freely admit that [you] don’t know how most jacked guys got there.” In light of this, why do you feel qualified to discuss how to get jacked? You have no clue what works. Yet you want to talk.
That pretty much says all that needs to be said about you.
[/quote]
If you were reading my posts, you’d know by the context that your arguments were already met. By the way, do you know what your listed profession says?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Roland Fisher wrote:
I’ve been here since day one, longer than rainjack. I’ve also said that I’d be making normal, occasional posts from now on, I didn’t say leaving. Can you actually read?
Your join date says otherwise. Pardon me if I don’t take you at your word.
But you will indeed prove me right. You will leave.
You have proven yourself to be an even bigger bitch than even I could have hoped for. You have zero credibility. And - unless you come back as a totally different persona - your bitch funk will stay with you and identify you as the little not training skinny-fat dumbass you have proven yourself to be currently.
Like they say: Zebras can’t change their stripes/
[/quote]
So, we’re not buddies? Oh no, say it isn’t so!