Matt C - Deplorable Fatty Turned Emaciated Non-Lifter. Motivate me.

[Matt]

"But not in real life"... So what, you weren't the fattest and least attractive at whatever 24/7 shit-tier gym you go to - does that automatically mean you're top 1%? I guess you like taking comfort in knowing that you're not the worst of the worst...

I think I am going to stop commenting on this thread, something just isn't right. You're either a boring troll, or you're socially inept / possibly fall somewhere on the spectrum. This entire thread is embarrassing, cringe and just quite off..

Uhh...with my shape in the fit picture, it's been assumed I am a fitness model ample times. I can walk into any room - any gym for that matter - anywhere in North America and be the most in-shape and strongest man 90% of the time.

Oh...you go to those gyms where benching over 350-lb and deadlifting over 500-lb is commonplace. 

[ratherbebig]

I can walk into any room - any gym for that matter - anywhere in North America and be the most in-shape and strongest man shortest man 90% of the time.

[Kwon]

Uhh...with my shape in the fit picture, it's been assumed I am a fitness model ample times. I can walk into any room - any gym for that matter - anywhere in North America and be the most in-shape and strongest man 90% of the time.

Oh...you go to those gyms where benching over 350-lb and deadlifting over 500-lb is commonplace. 

He knows it's an impressive shot (the fitness model-one), he's just jealous that he cannot compete with the genetic elite.

Thus trying to put you down.

[Matt]

Shortest manlet.

That too.

However ratherbebig - if you ARE indeed 240orBust...why poke fun at a man who is 5'8.5", when you are 5'10"?

My dad is/was 5'10.5" [he's 60 now, but still looks all of 5'10"], and i always thought the "10" sounded tall. 5'9" just doesn't cut the mustard. My DICK is 6.5"...I don't think we're allowed to round up dick size. I don't round up my height either. I would at a nighttime height of 5'8.7" or more. But my shortest height is 5'8.6", so I just say 5'8.5".

I always wanted to be 5'10", like 240orBust. I would round up 5'9.5".

He knows it's an impressive shot (the fitness model-one), he's just jealous that he cannot compete with the genetic elite.

Thus trying to put you down.

I'm realistic about my looks. I'm better looking than Ted Bundy. Not as good looking as Zac Efron.

But this is Getbig - tough crowd. I cum as much as Peter North, but I'm sure Getbig would make fun of my "small" loads.

While I'm older now, I can still look close to this...if the picture is taken from 10 feet away from me, LOL.

My experience is that as long as my face is shaved, and I'm wearing clean clothes...more than 50% of women express attraction to me.

Ugh... I'll post photos of my sister's in a bit, so people stop trashing my looks. It's going to be hard for the straight guys on here to deny my family genetics when they see them.

[Kwon]

That too.

However ratherbebig - if you ARE indeed 240orBust...why poke fun at a man who is 5'8.5", when you are 5'10"?

My dad is/was 5'10.5" [he's 60 now, but still looks all of 5'10"], and i always thought the "10" sounded tall. 5'9" just doesn't cut the mustard. My DICK is 6.5"...I don't think we're allowed to round up dick size. I don't round up my height either. I would at a nighttime height of 5'8.7" or more. But my shortest height is 5'8.6", so I just say 5'8.5".

I always wanted to be 5'10", like 240orBust. I would round up 5'9.5".

I'm realistic about my looks. I'm better looking than Ted Bundy. Not as good looking as Zac Efron.

But this is Getbig - tough crowd. I cum as much as Peter North, but I'm sure Getbig would make fun of my "small" loads.

While I'm older now, I can still look close to this...if the picture is taken from 10 feet away from me, LOL.

My experience is that as long as my face is shaved, and I'm wearing clean clothes...more than 50% of women express attraction to me.

Ugh... I'll post photos of my sister's in a bit, so people stop trashing my looks. It's going to be hard for the straight guys on here to deny my family genetics when they see them.

Zac Efron cannot compete with your looks, nor can Brad Pitt.

Good to hear you are still 5'10.5", the .5 is very important, and separates the men from the manlets. (5'10" is mantlet, 5'10.5" is optimal man)

Yes, i can understand that, i look really good when the picture is taken 58~125.5 feet away from me.

[Matt]

Zac Efron cannot compete with your looks, nor can Brad Pitt.

Good to hear you are still 5'10.5", the .5 is very important, and separates the men from the manlets. (5'10" is mantlet, 5'10.5" is optimal man)

Yes, i can understand that, i look really good when the picture is taken 58~125.5 feet away from me.

LOL!!! Me too.

That said, I know my league. Zac Efron is one thing...but what man anywhere is better looking than Brad Pitt?

A prime Gunter Schlierkamp maybe?

[Matt]

This phone is weird. Anyway, I have good family genetics.

I love on Getbig, somehow a majority of men look better in my fit photo I posted in the OP. The reality is, even pushing 40 now, a majority of men are in much worse shape.

People Live in La La Land.

https://m.facebook.com/mattcanning1/albums/17648570848

[JustPlaneJane]

There are at least 100 members in my gym, and i was leaner than all of them when I was in shape. People like me in the fit picture may be common on Getbig...but not in real life.

There are 20-25 women more muscular and leaner than you in my CrossFit gym every morning.

You have the worst strength athlete genetics I have ever seen.

Someone should do a study and see if Aspergers Syndrome causes muscles to atrophy.

[Earl1972]

jane is clearly in love with matt, at the very least she is stalking him

E

[Matt]

There are 20-25 women more muscular and leaner than you in my CrossFit gym every morning.

You lose credibility saying stuff like this.

[Kwon]

jane is clearly in love with matt, at the very least she is stalking him

E

Yes, she just cannot accept that Matt isn't interested in her , and that he has the best strength athlete genetics Canada has ever seen, thus she is behaving like that, in a futile attempt to get a reaction from him.

I don't think Matt will ever give that girl the time of day.

[Kahn.N.Singh]

That too.

However ratherbebig - if you ARE indeed 240orBust...why poke fun at a man who is 5'8.5", when you are 5'10"?

My dad is/was 5'10.5" [he's 60 now, but still looks all of 5'10"], and i always thought the "10" sounded tall. 5'9" just doesn't cut the mustard. My DICK is 6.5"...I don't think we're allowed to round up dick size. I don't round up my height either. I would at a nighttime height of 5'8.7" or more. But my shortest height is 5'8.6", so I just say 5'8.5".

I always wanted to be 5'10", like 240orBust. I would round up 5'9.5".

Matt, please, not this again.

It's a well-known fact that 99% of all bodybuilders employ the Matt Canning method of 'True Height Adjustment' (THA) when calculating their stature. THA being the fusion of terminological inexactitudes, unscrupulous use of hidden lifts, Marshian algebraic equations and an immaterial invocation of Gödel's incompleteness theorems to construct the following formula:
Length times Diameter plus Weight over Gait divided by Angle of posture squared ((L*D)+(W/G))/(A^2). Thus, it is entirely possible for the 5'6.5" Dorian to be 5'10.5”.

Brilliant and insightful.

Meta-physical, might I add that the imprecise variables built into the Canning THA exhibit an alluring "spooky action" (N.B. not related to the dark deeds of Goodrum’s evening constitutionals about Greenville's Bowery district). Canning states that his height is 5'8.5" tall, but also offers that he is accelerating into a nonstop incremental shrinking rate of roughly 1cm per decade. The stated Canning height (CH) and the impending rate of Canning height decline (CHD) form what even the most soft-headed Getbiggers recognize as an entangled pair (like Tbombz and Ahmed the Fez merchant in a Turkish bath house). Hence, not only will the CH elude being accurately measured because it is always declining at the rate of the CHD, but any attempt to precisely measure the CHD is equally futile because its measurement depends on Canning's height being fixed at a set point in time, which is itself impossible because of temporal infinitesimality. Consequently, the desideratum of capturing the CH will always be frustrated by CHD, and vice versa. So, unless we can, Mattatis Mattandis, get a fix on either the CH or the CHD, the upshot introduces the Matterial problem of quantum superposition, which is, as you know, more famously referred to as Schrödinger's Matt.

Dear Falco,

This is to be expected. Professor Khan.N.Singh and I have spent a significant amount of time studying this field, and what we are attempting to explore will understandably seem inaccessible to those without a solid academic background in the sciences, an understanding of philosophical hermeneutics, and a strong ability to parse intentionally esoteric and obfuscatory language designed to lampoon the subject's hypernumeracy resulting from a neurodevelopmental disorder. With that in mind, I will attach a simple diagram for illustrative purposes at the end of this post. However, what we are essentially saying is that a synthesis of quantum theory and a radical modification of Einstein's special relativity theory (E=mc²) are needed if we are to solve the paradox of Schrödinger's Matt and give an accurate measurement of True Canning Height (TCH).

As we have demonstrated, for the Canning THA to be correctly formulated we must factor in both the stated Canning height (CH) and the rate of the Canning height decline (CHD). Now, the problem we face here is that Einstein's general theory of relativity employs a non-Euclidean geometry - meaning that any space-time point can be transmuted into any other, which effectively blurs the distinction between observer and observed and results in us having to question what can exist in reality, needlessly complex 'wave function' descriptions, and the Copenhagen Interpretation of this paradox suggesting that Matt Canning's true height will remain in a superposition until he is forced to interact with the external world and reveal his actual, shoeless form. To overcome this I propose ignoring it, and reformulating Einstein's equation ( E=mc²) to mean: Elevation equals Matt Canning squared. This way, by taking the stated Canning height (5'8.5") applying the Canning THA (L*D)+(W/G))/(A^2) plus E=mc² (giving us x=±√169) minus the terminological inexactitudes (-5") and Canning height decline (1cm per decade, fixed for mathematical simplicity), we can conclude, through sheer conjecture and a non-observance of arithmetic, that the TCH is actually a diminutive 170.18 centimeters. Hardly surprising that one would go to such lengths to conceal the truth!

I am privileged to work alongside such a talented colleague.

Gentlemen, happy news! Our work on the paradoxical nature of the True Canning Height will appear as a series of lectures in: Herren Drs. Kahn.N.Singh und Meta-physical, "Vorlesungen über Schrödinger's Matt: Austisten Animadversionen," Erkenntnis. An International Journal of Scientific Philosophy (forthcoming, 2018-)

Addendum: In his famous Confessions of a Man Tall Enough not to be Concerned with the Heights of Others, the lanky Augustine of Hippo gave us the following oft-quoted account of the TCH:
 
What is the True Canning Height? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled. Why? Because if the TCH were always fixed and never shrinking at the rate of 1cm/decade, it would not be height but diminution. If, therefore, the present TCH is measured by the fact that it moves on to become its lesser, how can we say that even the present TCH is, when the reason why it is is that it is not? (p. 264).

Cheers!

[JustPlaneJane]

You lose credibility saying stuff like this.

You have no credibility, never did, never will.

Manlet.

[JuicedKangaroo]

Zac Efron cannot compete with your looks, nor can Brad Pitt.

Good to hear you are still 5'10.5", the .5 is very important, and separates the men from the manlets. (5'10" is mantlet, 5'10.5" is optimal man)

Yes, i can understand that, i look really good when the picture is taken 58~125.5 feet away from me.

Brilliant. Poor Matt seems to be clueless as to your trolling of him. This entire thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I'm out.

[Matt]

Brilliant. Poor Matt seems to be clueless as to your trolling of him. This entire thread leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I'm out.

Kwon ribs me - it's not the seething hate that we see on this board.

For instance, I've come to realize that Vince Goodrum gets what seems to be a lot of hate on the board, but he obviously has his place. And I think a lot of people, maybe even most, respect his posts.

All the making fun of Goodrum's credentials, for example, is mostly in good fun.

[VladimirVersic]

Dont know if mentioned in earlier posts. You should never stop working out with weights. As with everybody that weight trains. Enlarged hart is the reason. Get back to training. I fear for your health Matt.   

[_bruce_]

Great physique Matt.
Ladies beware - even Matt's benis is very vein.

[Kwon]

Great physique Matt.
Ladies beware - even Matt's benis is very vein.

Truth be told!

[joswift]

There are 20-25 women more muscular and leaner than you in my CrossFit gym every morning.

You have the worst strength athlete genetics I have ever seen.

Someone should do a study and see if Aspergers Syndrome causes muscles to atrophy.

stop flirting with him....

[Phantom Spunker]

Matt, please, not this again.

Haha, a great blast from the past from the peerless Dr. Singh. Those were the days.