Maximum Muscular Bodyweight

Training Bodybuilding
301

[quote]MarkT wrote:
Most posts on this have been by very experienced trainees with reason to question these “limits”, and concerns about the effect on newbie motivation from reading this. I’ve only been training for a year. I liked the article. I look at it as a convenient description of the physiques of the best Golden Age bodybuilders, which is a look I would be happy to achieve. I’m not comfortable asking muscular men at the gym how much they weigh, so I can only guess how much more muscle I’ll need to gain to get a particular visual effect. This data fit is helpful in that regard, and just generally interesting. I think the experienced guys already have a good feel for this, but I don’t. It’s a little surprising how low my predicted “maximum” weight is, and I certainly wouldn’t stop short at that weight if I hit it. Maybe I’m fatter than caliper measurements say. In any case, I find it to be positive motivation - maybe I’m not so many pounds of muscle away from a standout physique as I’d thought. I think the criticisms by Sentoguy and others are valid, but I still think it’s a useful article.

  • MarkT[/quote]

Let us know how “useful” it is after 5 years of serious training when you realize the mental barriers you will have to overcome to reach your true genetic upper limit.

Newbies have no basis for understanding just how much mental fortitude this will take for years and years of non-stop training. Allowing doubt to set in at an early stage in training is a huge mistake…if you actually plan on standing out in a crowd.

302

Mice and humans have 90% of their genes in common, Yet are hugely different. Comparing Mouse Genes to Man's And Finding a World of Similarity - The New York Times
This thing says they have 300 out of 30,000 genes (1 percent) that do not have any obvious counterparts. This doesnt mean we have 99% of our genes in common, it just means 99% of our genes are similar.

In another article I cannot find at this time, it said that by “turning off” genes in mice they have found that 6000 of the possible 30000 cause the mouse to die, when the gene is turned off. Also, some make the mouse grow much larger than is normal, some make them grow not as much as is normal. Now, if a mouse, which is very similiar to a human genetically, can change so its growth is outside the realm of “what is possible” by removing 1 gene out of 30,000, how do you know if, in humans, there are not slight mutations that cause humans to grow 10, 20 or even 30% more(or less) than your pet theory predicts. It is entirely possible that, in human beings, there are genetic outliers that have potential to do things that the rest of us dont even think is possible. What you are saying is like saying that human beings arent able to do calculas because normal people arent able to and you dont have the genetic potential to do calculas.

Also, wasnt the goal of “Golden Age” bodybuilding not to get as big as possible, but seek out a certain asthetic. If that is the case then how do you know they didnt stop training for size once they achieved said asthetic? In the “Golden Age” people still thought getting incredibally large would hurt your ability to do things that required movement, their were outlyers such as Paul Anderson and others, but for the most part they thougth you would get “big and bulky” at it didnt appeal to them. Also, synthetic testosterone was invented some time in the 30’s or 40’s. How do we know that those so called “natural” old time bodybuilders werent dropping trow, bending over and saying “stick it in, no the needle you nitwit” to their training partners.
Im going to print this out and make it into a book and sell it on amazon.

303

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Mice and humans have 90% of their genes in common, Yet are hugely different. Comparing Mouse Genes to Man's And Finding a World of Similarity - The New York Times
This thing says they have 300 out of 30,000 genes (1 percent) that do not have any obvious counterparts. This doesnt mean we have 99% of our genes in common, it just means 99% of our genes are similar.

In another article I cannot find at this time, it said that by “turning off” genes in mice they have found that 6000 of the possible 30000 cause the mouse to die, when the gene is turned off. Also, some make the mouse grow much larger than is normal, some make them grow not as much as is normal. Now, if a mouse, which is very similiar to a human genetically, can change so its growth is outside the realm of “what is possible” by removing 1 gene out of 30,000, how do you know if, in humans, there are not slight mutations that cause humans to grow 10, 20 or even 30% more(or less) than your pet theory predicts. It is entirely possible that, in human beings, there are genetic outliers that have potential to do things that the rest of us dont even think is possible. What you are saying is like saying that human beings arent able to do calculas because normal people arent able to and you dont have the genetic potential to do calculas. [/quote]

There is a genetic “defect” that cuts off myostatin production, and it is possible in humans:

“Researchers have actually looked into genetic mutations which cause the myostatin gene to become suppressed or completely shut down. Flex Wheeler was actually part of a study conducted at the University of Pittsburgh which showed he had a rare mutation of this gene (exon 2 position) along with a mutation in one of the genes responsible for IGF-1.”

I’m going to also throw the name Roger Bannister out there, not because it has anything to do with bodybuilding, but more as a point to what Professor X is saying. People like him show what it’s possible to do when you don’t know what a “limit” is. The 4 minute mile was supposed to be physically impossible, the heart would fail if forced to work so hard at that pace, right? I mean, it was science, how could he prove it wrong?

304

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
If that is the case then how do you know they didnt stop training for size once they achieved said asthetic? …but for the most part they thougth you would get “big and bulky” at it didnt appeal to them.[/quote]

I have an extensive collection of publications from the “golden era”. They chased muscle mass as much, possibly even moreso, than current-era drug-free bodybuilders. Almost exclusively the man with the biggest (or at least the man who appeared the biggest) physique, combined with reasonable aesthetics and leanness, won the contest. If anything, today conditioning and balanced development is much more important.

There is extensive evidence that the first serious experiments in the west with anabolic steroids and athletes began sometime in late 1959-early 1960. This has been confirmed by historians and athletes alike, such as Jonathan Fair, Terry Todd, John Grimek, Bill Starr, Bill March, etc, etc, etc. Grimek has claimed that Zeigler gave testosterone injections to three people in 1955 but failed to get the results he expected and so didn’t begin again until after Dianabol became available in 1958. There is no evidence that anabolics were used on athletes in the west before that. As far as the Soviets are concerned, they seem to have “discovered” testosterone around 1952 - this has been confirmed by several indenpedent sources and statistical analyses of weightlifting totals over the years.

For that reason, I didn’t use the statistics of any untested bodybuilder past 1958 in my analysis. Although, steroids don’t seem to have significantly influenced their development until the early-to-mid 1960s.

Roger Bannister broke the four minute mile within days of receiving custom-made, light-weight shoes with spikes installed - the first runner to ever use such shoes. Within weeks they were being used by other runners as well and a rash of athletes broke the four-minute mile. It had little, if anything, to do with mental blockages.

It’s spelled calculus.

305

Yes - I started a thread about a similar subject after an ex-pro told me a natural guy @ 5 10" couldn’t get over 200lbs at 8%.

CT basically agreed that while it is possible to exceed this - it is very unusual and most guys kid themselves about their body fat levels. Just found TC’s response…

[quote]

200 on 5’9’’ - 5’10’’ with single digit bodyfat is a great physique. The thing is that most peoples underestimate what 8% looks like. Some peoples begin to see some abs and some veins and immediately think that they are 10%!

A TRUE 8% is VERY close to a bodybuilding competition shape. On the picture attached I am 208 (I’m 5’8’') at 7.5% body fat (one of the rare times I had my BF calculated).

So 200lbs at 8% on 5’9’’ - 5’10’’ is nothing to sneeze at and is in fact a very challenging goal to achieve. Not many peoples will actually reach that level.

BUT that is not to say that it’s IMPOSSIBLE to get bigger at a similar degree of body fat. I knew a guy in high school, I played football with him, he was 180lbs on 5’7’’ and absolutely devoid of any body fat (he was under 8% without a doubt). Did he take steroids? Heck, the guy DIDN’T EVEN TRAIN!!!

Normally we account for a 5lbs difference per inch. So 180 on 5’7’’ is pretty much like 195lbs on 5’10’'. Surely if this guy had trained and ate more than 2 meals of crap a day he would have easily reached a much higher body weight than 200 in good condition.

Granted, this is ONE case (although I have played with quite a few guys who were in the 190-205lbs range on 5’9’’ - 5’11’’ with sub 10% body fat and who only did minimal training and ate sub-par diets) but there are many like this out there.

Sadly, it’s not us! But it goes to show that the human body cannot be put in a box saying that ‘‘it’s impossible to achieve this’’.

Do I believe that one can be bigger than 200lbs on 5’9’’ - 5’10’’ without drugs? YES!

Do I believe that everybody can reach that level? NO! And I do believe that it is a much better physique than most peoples imagine. [/quote]

306

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
Lockett’s drug status is the subject of many bodybuilding forum debates and I have no intention of being drawn into one further.
[/quote]

Why back out now? You’ve seemed alright discussing him up to this point.

Once again, if you wish to dispute his current drug status, then ok, I’m not going to say that I know for certain that he is clean. But his drug status on stage at the 2006 events is unquestionable. And if you insist that it is questionable, then the vast, vast majority of the champions from the past 60 years who you have used for your study are also questionable.

Huge? No, the guy on the right in the attached picture has a huge bone structure (Andrew “Stumpy” Raynes). Lockett’s might be above average, but it’s not disproportionately big. And you are right, I don’t generally go around and measure other people’s wrists and ankles.

Well, only time will tell. I’ll remember that you said this though. And if he does compete in a natural drug-tested organization with his current level of development, then can we expect you to come on here and admit that your equation isn’t as fool proof as you have claimed up to this point? And that perhaps we have been right all along in questioning the natural bodybuilders of the past as being the pinnacle of potential human muscular development?

Yes, and once again we aren’t arguing with that. What we are questioning is whether those individuals were in fact the ultimate in human muscle building genetic potential. But, myself and others have already pretty much said our piece on this subject ad nauseam.

And once again, bringing football, ruby and other athletes into the debate is not off topic. We all heard you the first time when you said this was intended to apply to bodybuilders (why I still don’t know, but we heard you). Our point was that bodybuilding has always been a fringe sport. It has rarely if ever attracted the true genetic freaks. Once again, why would someone want to completely devote themselves to something that is going to make them very little money, when they could be making millions of dollars in the NFL? In the vast majority of cases, they aren’t.

So, the point in bringing up football players, and other athletes, is to illustrate the point that in all likelihood, the people with the true greatest potential for muscle mass aren’t pursuing bodybuilding (and will never step on stage). Some of them have fantastic physiques and don’t even train specifically to look that way, it’s just a by product of their insane genetics. If they did choose to pursue bodybuilding (which realistically will probably never happen), then you might just see more individuals like Lockett and your formula might not be as accurate as you had previously believed.

307

[quote]Professor X wrote:
MarkT wrote:
Most posts on this have been by very experienced trainees with reason to question these “limits”, and concerns about the effect on newbie motivation from reading this. I’ve only been training for a year. I liked the article. I look at it as a convenient description of the physiques of the best Golden Age bodybuilders, which is a look I would be happy to achieve. I’m not comfortable asking muscular men at the gym how much they weigh, so I can only guess how much more muscle I’ll need to gain to get a particular visual effect. This data fit is helpful in that regard, and just generally interesting. I think the experienced guys already have a good feel for this, but I don’t. It’s a little surprising how low my predicted “maximum” weight is, and I certainly wouldn’t stop short at that weight if I hit it. Maybe I’m fatter than caliper measurements say. In any case, I find it to be positive motivation - maybe I’m not so many pounds of muscle away from a standout physique as I’d thought. I think the criticisms by Sentoguy and others are valid, but I still think it’s a useful article.

  • MarkT

Let us know how “useful” it is after 5 years of serious training when you realize the mental barriers you will have to overcome to reach your true genetic upper limit.

Newbies have no basis for understanding just how much mental fortitude this will take for years and years of non-stop training. Allowing doubt to set in at an early stage in training is a huge mistake…if you actually plan on standing out in a crowd.[/quote]

Professor X, I don’t doubt that keeping motivated over many years is very tough. In fact, this is why I’m a newbie now, at age 46 - every previous time I started before, I quit after a few months. I just meant that for me, at this moment, this paper has a positive motivational effect. I doubt it will poison my attitude long-term, I’m always open to re-thinking things. If I’m still training seriously 4 years from now, I’ll probably be thinking about new things, rather than this. I’m not good at long-term planning of my life, as you seem to be. I tend to work toward mid-range goals a few years away (with a long-range dream in mind, too), then reassess what I want. If I ever get really big, it will be by a process of getting substantially bigger, getting used to that, and deciding bigger would be better. I feel this happening already with regard to my “beginner gains”, which at first seemed amazing, now less of a big deal more the new status quo, tomorrow maybe inadequate. As for standing out in a crowd, it will have to be due to great width, as I am 5’7".

  • MarkT
308

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
Why back out now?[/quote]

Because I don’t see the point in mindlessly repeating the same arguments merely for the sake of appearing to be right (like your last post), or for no particular reason.

What I said stands. The article (and even moreso the booklet and analysis it is based on) is about as clear as it can get. If someone thinks they can surpass that then fine. But those same people should keep in mind that not everyone can be a Dave Goodin or a Reg Park (who are both accurately described by those equations).

I knew when I posted that article certain people would have a resistance to it, but I never knew the clinging to bodybuilding fantasies would run so deep as to completely cloud logic and reason.

309

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:

Because I don’t see the point in mindlessly repeating the same arguments merely for the sake of appearing to be right (like your last post), or for no particular reason.
[/quote]

Hey, speak for yourself. The reason I keep repeating the same arguments is because you have yet to offer any counter arguments and instead just glaze over them. So, I figured that maybe they hadn’t sunk in yet and you needed to hear them one more time. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue:

You are certainly right, not everyone can be a Reg Park, or Steve Reeves, but no one was trying to say that everyone could surpass or even reach the level of muscle mass of natural BB’ing champions. What we are saying is that Reg Park, Dave Goodin and the other BB’ers in your study might not be the best, genetically speaking, there is out there in terms of potential to build muscle.

[quote]
I knew when I posted that article certain people would have a resistance to it, but I never knew the clinging to bodybuilding fantasies would run so deep as to completely cloud logic and reason.[/quote]

Nor did I realize that someone who fancies themself a scientist could be so closed minded to the idea that their theory might not be as fool proof as they had originally thought. Just think if others followed your lead, we’d still believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

310

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:

I knew when I posted that article certain people would have a resistance to it, but I never knew the clinging to bodybuilding fantasies would run so deep as to completely cloud logic and reason.[/quote]

Ignoring logic and reason, such as excluding the vast majority of potential genetic outliers for the purpose of making a study seem more valid(read: where are the rest of the athletes?)

311

“Sentoguy”,

Questioning my science? Common. I’ve told my name, my credentials, showed my photos and provided living references of top bodybuilders who are accurately described by those equations (among hundreds of others). You post with a fake name, hide behind other people’s photos, use examples of people with no verifiable drug-free status and you question my credibility. People like you are exactly why I have no interest in debating this further here.

The statistical analysis stands and has absolutely nothing to do with whether I like it, regret it, take it all back, or continue to stand by it. I’ve been abundantly clear about the groups to whom it applies and is intended to apply. It is illogical and inconclusive to make conjectures about other athletes who do not purposefully train for maximum balanced muscle throughout their bodies.

The intelligent ones will figure it out and the rest will continue believing whatever they want. Everything has already been said.

312

/end thread
Problem solved right there

313

Yah, this is from the 1st page of the thread and all, but this is utter crap.

I’ve already added more than that to my physique, and according to your numbers should have collapsed into a black hole quite a while ago, especially considering I am an “ectomorph” by body type… I have crap genetics as well. Of course, you will tell me I am wrong and I have good genetics, even though you don’t know me from Adam and have not seen my training history or starting point. I also have no plans on stopping here. And no, I haven’t used any drugs.

You have to face the fact that your handy little equation holds no power over those that truly want to change. Sorry. The world does not exist as you would wish it to.

314

Current Height: 71 in
(I fit the African description perfectly…small wrist/ankles…short torso with long legs)
Wrist: 7 in
Ankle: 9.1 in

Projected LEAN Mass weight at 8% BF: 198.6lbs

198.6 * 1.08 = 215lbs at 8%BF

Current: 230 lbs at 14%(i think)…According to this thing I should have 30 more lbs lean mass at this bodyfat level. Too many Snickers bars i guess…At least my ‘ceiling’ is still far away, though.

But, Wow such backlash on dude. I think its safe to say that there ARE exceptions to everything. Guy is not forcing this on to you all, just some new information to consider. I personally found it interesting. but The morale of this long-winded story is to lift hard, eat heavy and see what happens. If the #'s pan out, then it’s ok. If they dont pan out, then that’s ok too.

If you’re too into your own head that you’ll let a few hypothetical numbers completely screw with your mind and results, then you have bigger problems that need addressing.

315

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
“Sentoguy”,

Questioning my science?
[/quote]

When did I question your science? What I questioned was your inability to even entertain the idea that your equations might not be such an accurate predictor of potential human muscle mass as you seem to suggest. I’m sure that you were very meticulous in measuring the athletes in your study’s wrists and ankles, and I’m sure that your formula really is accurately derived from these measurements.

But, that still doesn’t mean that those athletes were in fact the ultimate human potential for building muscle mass. You’ve so far yet to comment on this, so I’m assuming you don’t have a rebuttal.

So, are you saying that because I post under a screen name, don’t choose to put photos of myself on a public forum and HAVE used an example of a verifiable drug-free bodybuilder (Lockett once again was verifiably drug-free in 2006 at 230 lbs on stage, which is well beyond your formula’s limitations) that this makes my points any less valid?

Great, so you told me your name. Good for you that you’ve put a lot of time into your education, and good for you in the progress that you have achieved with your own body.

None of that has anything to do with my points. Your equations accurately describe the bodybuilders who you have tested, I have never once said anything to the contrary. But that DOESN"T MEAN THAT THOSE CHAMPIONS WERE IN FACT THE UPPER LIMITATION OF HUMAN MUSCULAR POTENTIAL. That’s all I’ve been saying, and Lockett is living flesh and blood proof that there are individuals who are beyond the limitations of your formula. Thus calling your paper’s underlying theory into question.

Is it possible to determine the maximal potential for human muscle mass by studying humans who are not in fact the upper limit of genetic potential?

So what about Lockett? He falls outside of the limitations of the statistical analysis. Doesn’t that at least call into question your theory?

You also have stated on numerous occasions that this is intended to apply to BB’ers. But, you haven’t answered to the objection that the most gifted athletes don’t usually pursue bodybuilding. So, it’s not fair to say that you’ve developed a formula to predict maximal muscular potential for humans.

[quote]
The intelligent ones will figure it out and the rest will continue believing whatever they want. Everything has already been said.[/quote]

Always trying to bring up the “intelligence” card aren’t you? Yet plenty of intelligent arguments have been made against your paper. You of course refuse to acknowledge this as it would force you to actually engage in a serious “intelligent” discussion.

316

The equations from that article are excerpted from a section of a booklet regarding measurements of elite-level drug-free bodybuilders. This group was chosen as they are the only group who purposefully train for maximum balanced muscle mass throughout the body. It is not intended as a measuring stick for Rugby players, Football players or concert violinists. The original booklet does contain equations more applicable to those individuals, but this article is not it.

Lockett’s drug-free status as of the more recent phase of his career is doubtful. Also, we don’t know his anthropometric measurements, so discussing him pertaining to this article is pointless.

I can’t make it any clearer than that.

I really don’t know what else I can say to you or what you want.

317

[quote]MarkT wrote:
Professor X wrote:
MarkT wrote:
Most posts on this have been by very experienced trainees with reason to question these “limits”, and concerns about the effect on newbie motivation from reading this. I’ve only been training for a year. I liked the article. I look at it as a convenient description of the physiques of the best Golden Age bodybuilders, which is a look I would be happy to achieve. I’m not comfortable asking muscular men at the gym how much they weigh, so I can only guess how much more muscle I’ll need to gain to get a particular visual effect. This data fit is helpful in that regard, and just generally interesting. I think the experienced guys already have a good feel for this, but I don’t. It’s a little surprising how low my predicted “maximum” weight is, and I certainly wouldn’t stop short at that weight if I hit it. Maybe I’m fatter than caliper measurements say. In any case, I find it to be positive motivation - maybe I’m not so many pounds of muscle away from a standout physique as I’d thought. I think the criticisms by Sentoguy and others are valid, but I still think it’s a useful article.

  • MarkT

Let us know how “useful” it is after 5 years of serious training when you realize the mental barriers you will have to overcome to reach your true genetic upper limit.

Newbies have no basis for understanding just how much mental fortitude this will take for years and years of non-stop training. Allowing doubt to set in at an early stage in training is a huge mistake…if you actually plan on standing out in a crowd.

Professor X, I don’t doubt that keeping motivated over many years is very tough. In fact, this is why I’m a newbie now, at age 46 - every previous time I started before, I quit after a few months. I just meant that for me, at this moment, this paper has a positive motivational effect. I doubt it will poison my attitude long-term, I’m always open to re-thinking things. If I’m still training seriously 4 years from now, I’ll probably be thinking about new things, rather than this. I’m not good at long-term planning of my life, as you seem to be. I tend to work toward mid-range goals a few years away (with a long-range dream in mind, too), then reassess what I want. If I ever get really big, it will be by a process of getting substantially bigger, getting used to that, and deciding bigger would be better. I feel this happening already with regard to my “beginner gains”, which at first seemed amazing, now less of a big deal more the new status quo, tomorrow maybe inadequate. As for standing out in a crowd, it will have to be due to great width, as I am 5’7".

  • MarkT[/quote]

Something tells me you have little to worry about as far as ever getting really big.

I must be psychic.

318

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I must be psychic.
[/quote]

I always thought you were telepathic? :slight_smile:

319

[quote]Casey Butt wrote:
The equations from that article are excerpted from a section of a booklet regarding measurements of elite-level drug-free bodybuilders. This group was chosen as they are the only group who purposefully train for maximum balanced muscle mass throughout the body. It is not intended as a measuring stick for Rugby players, Football players or concert violinists. The original booklet does contain equations more applicable to those individuals, but this article is not it.
[/quote]

Well, it would be interesting to see the equations for those individuals. But you’re still missing the point.

I realize that as far as bodybuilding goes, you only really have the natural champions to work with. So I’m not faulting your logic or your procedures.

All I (we) have been saying is that the individuals who truly have the highest potential for building muscle mass don’t usually go into bodybuilding, they go into more well paying sports like football. I still don’t understand why it wouldn’t apply to other athletes, but you’ve been pretty clear that it’s not intended to.

My point in bringing up Lockett was to illustrate that there are individuals out there with superior genetic potential for building muscle mass than the natural bodybuilders of the past, most of which obviously did not choose to get into bodybuilding.

So, while the equation in your article is I’m sure very accurate for predicting the winners of the majority of natural bodybuilding championships, those individuals might not actually be the “maximum” muscular bodyweight that humans can carry.

Agreed, his current drug-free status is questionable.

His status as of 2006 though isn’t, and you yourself said that by your estimations/calculations (and you obviously have a lot of experience measuring the wrists and ankles of bodybuilders, so your estimations are probably quite close) he would be 221 lbs 12% bf in the off season. But, he was 230 lbs on stage (which is considerably less than 12% bf) in 2006 and passed his drug tests. That still places him well beyond the formula’s limitations, even if you add 3%.

You are of course right though that we don’t know for certain what his wrist and ankle measurements are, so it’s impossible to say for certain whether the equation would have accurately predicted his on stage bw as of 2006.

But we’d still have to assume that the guy somehow had reached his maximal potential bodyweight in a little over 2 years of training. How many other people have you ever heard of that have done that? In most cases it takes at least 5 years and probably closer to a decade. So, supposing that he still had another 2.5 years at least of growth, he still would considerably surpass the formula.

[quote]
I can’t make it any clearer than that.

I really don’t know what else I can say to you or what you want.[/quote]

You are right, we are pretty much going in circles. You’ve obviously stated your position and I’ve stated my questions/objections quite clearly.

Hopefully as you said before, those reading this discussion can draw their own conclusions and come away with something worthwhile.

320

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

All I (we) have been saying is that the individuals who truly have the highest potential for building muscle mass don’t usually go into bodybuilding, they go into more well paying sports like football. I still don’t understand why it wouldn’t apply to other athletes, but you’ve been pretty clear that it’s not intended to.[/quote]

Dude, no offense, but you are going round and round on this when THIS is the main issue. This study means very little since many people with genetics on the extreme end of strength and muscular development will often choose a high paying sport to excel in rather than pose on stage for no money and a trophy. That invalidates the claim that anyone surpassing this must have better genetics than the best in the past…since he EXCLUDES the best in other sports or activities.

That, my friend, makes no sense.

This study only shows what those bodybuilders of the past were able to achieve, not what ANYONE can achieve. Since we can’t even prove they are the elite in terms of human genetic potential (because sports like football were excluded), this “study” shows nothing…NOTHING but that.

This has gone on for pages and for many months. The ones most likely to fall for this are the newbies or people who won’t achieve much in the way of development because they are too focused on what they CAN’T do.