See, the problem with arguing with Sir NeoSeminole is that he simply doesen't acknowledge reality. Look on page 808, where I gave him a truly brilliant explanation for why Dorian carried more lean mass than the 1999 Coleman and had a thicker back, and all he did was plagiarize my post and reverse the arguments to his side.
The problem with arguing with you is that you simply don't acknowledge reality. You think you gave a "truly brilliant explanation" but you didn't. Don't assume that b/c Dorian and Ronnie weighed the same, and Dorian had better conditioning and was 1 inch shorter, that automatically means he carried more lean mass. Let's say for argument's sake that Dorian had more overall bulk, this doesn't mean it was evenly distributed on his frame. His arms, chest, quads, and glutes were all smaller than Ronnie's. The only areas where Dorian looks noticably larger than Ronnie is the midsection and calves. For all intents and purposes, Ronnie would appear to have larger muscles overall.
I laugh whenever you say that Dorian had a thicker back. This has been thoroughly disproven with visual evidence. Ronnie's back was just as wide and didn't flatten out in the rear double biceps like Dorian's. By the way, I plagiarized your post on purpose you dumbass. I was tired of dealing with your babbling. So I decided to return the favor.
When I pointed this out to him, he just wrote "no, you're wrong you idiot". I mean, how can I argue with something like that?
that was a parody of the way you sound in your posts.
