You call this infinitely flatter although they look about the same.
Wll, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think that most people can see that Dorian's gut was never even close to that of Ronnie's in 2003. Hell, even in 1997 Dorian's gut still couldn't compare with Ronnie's, let alone at his best. You ahve just demonstrated that what "looking" is far from an accurate way to evaluate something. This is especuially true considering the
obvious fat that Ronnie's gut dwarfed Dorian's...and yet you still can't see it!
why don't you ask him?
Because I don't care. Since it's you who brough that up in the first place, then it relies on you to verify if your own assertion is factual.
You made a big fucking deal out of the fact that 21" equals 52.5 centimeters and not 52. Well, putting aside the fact that this is picking at straws because the difference is infinitesimal, I made the point that I said that I said that Dorian's arms are either 52 or 53 centimeters. So, they could actually be slightly bigger than 21".
23 - 20.5 = 2.5 which is greater than 2.
Again, the quote I saw was that Dorian's arms were either 52 or 53 centimeters, so I just rounded it to 21". You see, unlike you, I'm not preoccupied with precision since it is irrelvantg in this case. It's not like we're calculating the trajectory of a space probe, in which case taking into account measures to decimal houses is required. This is bodybuilding, for f**k sake! No shit that 2.5" is more than 2". The issue is two: first, Dorian's arms could actually be slightly bigger than 21", and secondly, halsf an inch is insignificant of a difference since both their arms were over 20". I'm not even bringing up the fact that Ronnie's overrall arm size advantage is only visible from the front while contracting the biceps.
If I said that Ronnie and Dorian were the same width based on 1 pic, then you would have an argument. I arrived at my conclusion after looking at several pics and using my knowledge of anatomy. What a coincidence they happen to be the same width in all of the comparisons. There's even a video of them standing onstage together in identical lighting, and they still look the same width.
But the issue here is not number of pics. Did you do a mental arithmatic average of how wide their lats "appear" to you and then came up with a visual average of their respective lat widths? Then you compared them in your mind and came to the conclusion that they were the same? The issue here is that a mental estimate of lat width based on many pics can be just as wrong as that made by looking at a single one. My estimate, at least, tries to be factual and logical instead of simply a guesstimate. Nice try, kid, you've failed again miserably.
excuses excuses. Go ahead and search my posts for mistakes. You may be lucky to find 1 or 2. Again, I wasn't criticizing you for a spelling mistake. My point is that you claim to be a genius and you brag about how people always compliment how smart you are
I never claimed to be a genius; I claimed that I got high scores on I.Q tests. Only someone possesed a sophomoric understanding of intelligence would regard a score at a test as such. Genius has a lot more to do with devergent thinking than with convergent one. For instance, Francis Crick, one of the discoveres of the DNA structure, had an I.Q of only about 115. Yet, he was undoubtedly a genius, because he proved his intelligence by being creative in the real word. As another example, Richard Feynman, physics Nobelist, scored an I.Q of only 125. While this is clearly above average, it is much less than you would expect from the second most brilliant theoretical physicist of the Twentieth Century. I.Q tests measures one's ability to solve a very large number of relatively simple logical problems in a short span of time. They do not measure profound thought, or creativity.
yet you don't know the difference between "waist" and "waste."
Ok.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
