Sock It To Me

Off Topic Rate My Physique Photos
342

[quote]Legcutter wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
You are very good at making good threads suck really really bad.

detazathoth wrote:
legcutter has basically been an ass.

Hey - a fan club! I was wondering whether or not you and your friend would stalk me in other threads, as well.

Personally, I’m not all that surprised Stronghold did - if the original thread which started our altercation and the whole situation between him, Jacked Diesel, and FlavaDave is any indication, the kid loves a good online argument (seriously, who argues online with someone they see every day in person? I’ll tell you who - that guy right there!)

I made a harmless comment defending an assertion made by an earlier poster, didn’t resort to any personal attacks, and merely responded when people addressed that particular discussion point. But, of course, I’m the one ruining the thread - you know, the one where most people are busy degrading the accomplishments of the OP - the accomplishments I applauded him for, btw. Never mind that neither one of you a) apologized to the OP for continuing the hijack or b) made any sort of intelligible refutation to any points I made.

Face it - the two of you are bitching simply to bitch, AND because you love a good e-argument - for one of you it’s apparently some sort of uncontrollable fetish (as you are just disregarding the attempt I made to let it the hell go in the other thread), and the other is (judging by your stellar response thus far) too much of an idiot to realize when he should sit, play dead, or just stay in the fucking dog house and not bother participating.

Quit trolling for me on this site - as flattering as your ability to obsess with me simply by us sharing a few posts is, it detracts from the point of this thread (which is why I even suggested we start a new one over this).

Or, you can swallow whatever need for recognition from other posters you may have (which is why you are doing it so shamelessly and publicly) and simply PM me.

Once again - sorry for the hijack.[/quote]

OHHH My brother! This man is pre-law, don’t “fucks” with him…

343

[quote]PrsianPrvrsion wrote:
Legcutter wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
You are very good at making good threads suck really really bad.

detazathoth wrote:
legcutter has basically been an ass.

Hey - a fan club! I was wondering whether or not you and your friend would stalk me in other threads, as well.

Personally, I’m not all that surprised Stronghold did - if the original thread which started our altercation and the whole situation between him, Jacked Diesel, and FlavaDave is any indication, the kid loves a good online argument (seriously, who argues online with someone they see every day in person? I’ll tell you who - that guy right there!)

I made a harmless comment defending an assertion made by an earlier poster, didn’t resort to any personal attacks, and merely responded when people addressed that particular discussion point. But, of course, I’m the one ruining the thread - you know, the one where most people are busy degrading the accomplishments of the OP - the accomplishments I applauded him for, btw. Never mind that neither one of you a) apologized to the OP for continuing the hijack or b) made any sort of intelligible refutation to any points I made.

Face it - the two of you are bitching simply to bitch, AND because you love a good e-argument - for one of you it’s apparently some sort of uncontrollable fetish (as you are just disregarding the attempt I made to let it the hell go in the other thread), and the other is (judging by your stellar response thus far) too much of an idiot to realize when he should sit, play dead, or just stay in the fucking dog house and not bother participating.

Quit trolling for me on this site - as flattering as your ability to obsess with me simply by us sharing a few posts is, it detracts from the point of this thread (which is why I even suggested we start a new one over this).

Or, you can swallow whatever need for recognition from other posters you may have (which is why you are doing it so shamelessly and publicly) and simply PM me.

Once again - sorry for the hijack.

OHHH My brother! This man is pre-law, don’t “fucks” with him…[/quote]

Wait, so you joined this site last month, found some thread where another guy from my school made comments about being pre-law back in october/november and then came into this thread to try to make a funny joke but got confused because you ended up commenting on something written by a different person (three months ago)?

Man, youre a really cool guy.

344


On a more serious note, the gains are phenomenal no matter what one attributes the credit too. This Clark went from Clark Kent to Superman in less time it take to change outfits in a telephone booth. Amazing in itself regardless of contrasts in opinion.

345

Ok my 2c

  1. 65lbs in 2 years is achievable without AAS…

  2. The 1 month of Trenadrol and Epistane that this kid was on would be almost negligible to his overall progress throughout this 2 year period so stop bitching. (for you e-tards, this means he’d still look practically the same at this point even if he didn’t use them!)

  3. Have a look at the age, 17-19, his test would be through the roof at this point in his life (that would also attribute to his “bacne” for the wanker who said it didn’t help his case for being “natural”)

The kids obviously got good genetics and has trained hard over the past couple years, few kids his age have the know how (despite them thinking they do) or the discipline to make gains like he has, but they are definitely achievable. You can tell by the way the guy posts that he knows his lifting.

Good on you kid you’re doing well, don’t listen to the weak ass internet cowboys putting you down, they know sh*t =)

346

Good job m8 u say u aint on roids and if so you must have worked god dam hard and that deserves respect got a 9 from me

347

Just admit you took 'roids sk8er boi!

You make it sound like if everyone worked out as hard as you and never ate junk we’d all have similar physiques. No way! Either you have some freaky genetics or you took roids. What’s more likely? The latter…especially with the back acne, which is a symptom of roids. Roger Clemens lied to all of America…is it such a stretch to think you’re lying to us?

Aside: What’s a PH?

348

PH-Prohormone

Don’t use the word roid. Steroids or AAS.

As for the bacne comment, that’s dumb, bacne doesn’t automatically mean steroid use nor do all steroid users develop body acne.

I’m not defending the OP, I have my own thoughts about that. You just made yourself seem a little petty and uneducated (as far as bodybuilding goes) so I was just clarifying some things.

349

I didn’t say his back acne proved he’s using steroids, but it sure doesn’t help his case.

Again, he’s a freaky anomaly or he’s using steroids. Sure, the former is possible, but not probable.

He’s just waaay to ripped now and he looked like a stick in his sk8r boi days.

350

It’s funny. Whenever I see pro-bodybuilders on stage, I never see any bacne, even though they’re supposed to be juiced to the gills. Meanwhile, I saw some 130lb teenage kid the other day that had acne all over his back. I must now conclude that pro-bodybuilders are clean and that kid was hopped up on the juice.

351

Good point. Anyone want to try and beat that?

352

I would listen to prisoner on this one guys. He has been around for a very long time and, in no doubt, knows what he is talking about…

353

[quote]GetSwole wrote:
PH-Prohormone

Don’t use the word roid. Steroids or AAS.

As for the bacne comment, that’s dumb, bacne doesn’t automatically mean steroid use nor do all steroid users develop body acne.

I’m not defending the OP, I have my own thoughts about that. You just made yourself seem a little petty and uneducated (as far as bodybuilding goes) so I was just clarifying some things.[/quote]

pro hormones are steroids, other wise known as roids, or AAS.

354

[quote]DeanoT wrote:
I would listen to prisoner on this one guys. He has been around for a very long time and, in no doubt, knows what he is talking about…[/quote]

hey can i have a handjob too?

355

[quote]1morerep wrote:
dude you simply do not need that much volume. that’s some serious overkill. by all means keep the intensity high but i’d really cut way back on the sets. you’ll make better gains i’m sure not to mention have some free friggin time to have a life ;)[/quote]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on T-Nation. This guy’s physique is phenomenal for the amount of time he’s spent training, it’s very clear to everyone that what he’s doing is working extremely well.

356

[quote]Weasel42 wrote:
1morerep wrote:
dude you simply do not need that much volume. that’s some serious overkill. by all means keep the intensity high but i’d really cut way back on the sets. you’ll make better gains i’m sure not to mention have some free friggin time to have a life :wink:

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read on T-Nation. This guy’s physique is phenomenal for the amount of time he’s spent training, it’s very clear to everyone that what he’s doing is working extremely well.[/quote]

Actually what you said is the stupidest thing i’ve ever read. Just because a certain method of training happened to work for an obviously steroid abusing teen, doesn’t mean its optimal or even sound. Anyone who’s gaining off of a vigorous 37 set routine is obviously juiced out of their minds. It is physiologically impossible to synthesize the amount of protein required to build that physique in that amount of time without juice. There is nothing phenomenal about someone at his age building that amount of muscle in that period of time because it automatically means he was juicing to start out with, which isn’t phenomenal, its dangerous and stupid.

357

i would like to have achieved what you did in just 2 years…

looks great.

but, a lot of doubt in my mind regarding the use of chemistry - i know a lot, a lot of people who train with weights. very few can compare with you, and they have been training for 10+ years.
each guy has been taking chemistry for years (not pro hormones but ‘heavier’ stuff)

so, you are either a freak of nature, missing that myostatin gene or whatever (less probably) or on drugs constantly.

look at raymond tito for example, you are way more muscular than what would seem to be max of a ‘natural’ bodybuilder

man i am happy if i gain 4-5 lbs muscle per year. you got 30, wtf i do not know anyone anywhere that did that without heavy chemistry.

i would just like to know what was used in which dosages and duration of use, side effects etc…

358

[quote]Uber N3wb wrote:
\

pro hormones are steroids, other wise known as roids, or AAS.

[/quote]

I know. As for the word, I just think the word 'roids is so stupid, sounds to much like media anti-AAS crap. I mean, its all the idiot 16 year olds that are like dude roids are bad when I tell them I take fucking creatine.

359

[quote]sszgo wrote:
i would like to have achieved what you did in just 2 years…

looks great.

but, a lot of doubt in my mind regarding the use of chemistry - i know a lot, a lot of people who train with weights. very few can compare with you, and they have been training for 10+ years.
each guy has been taking chemistry for years (not pro hormones but ‘heavier’ stuff)

so, you are either a freak of nature, missing that myostatin gene or whatever (less probably) or on drugs constantly.

look at raymond tito for example, you are way more muscular than what would seem to be max of a ‘natural’ bodybuilder

man i am happy if i gain 4-5 lbs muscle per year. you got 30, wtf i do not know anyone anywhere that did that without heavy chemistry.

i would just like to know what was used in which dosages and duration of use, side effects etc…[/quote]

yeah man, what chemistry does your body do?-does your body like do the krebs cycle and crazy ass shit like that?-INSANNNNE.

360

P22 knows his stuff.

361

what supplements you on man?