yes, this is what I said earlier. Show me where I contradicted myself. I have always maintained that 99 Ronnie's lats were just as wide as Dorian's. I provided video and photographic evidence, which is a hell of a lot more accurate than guessing, to support my claim.
You contradicted yourself when you said that bodybuilding is visual, and that Ronnie appears to be as wide as Dorian. He appears to be as wide to
you. This doesen't mean that he appears as wide to me, or to anybody else. The argument here is one of an absolute amthematical measurement, not of what you or me or anybody elese thinks is wider. The bottom line is that I argued that, based on an empirical evaluation, namely, that they weighted thesame and yet Ronnie had bigger quads and Dorian had ticker waist and yet equivalent taper, it is my contention that Dorian was wider. You argued that Ronnie was just as wide. Well, prove it, moron. Let's see. I don't care who appears to be wider to you, because the odds are that Dorian was wider.
your prose style? Since when did you copyright the english language, you dipshit?
You claim you're marter and yet you copy many of my expesssions and argumentative tactics. It goes to show that, deep down, you know I'm more intelligent. This is also evidenced in that you challenged me to an intellectual argument and, when I took you challenge, you ran away like a little girl. Bitch.
I still stand by what I said earlier. Ronnie was more balanced than Dorian.
No. He does have a better overrall structure than Dorian, but hi smuscular symmetry was never great, not even in 1998, when it was at it's best. Except for his wide hips, Dorian's structure is as close to perfect as they come. With the exception of biceps, there wasn't a single muscle in Dorian's body that was sub-par. None.
At least he was huge everywhere with the exception of his calves. Dorian, on the other hand, looked like a conglomerate of anatomical parts from bodybuilders of different weights. He had the back of a 280 lbs man with the arms of a 200 lbs man and the legs of a 240 lbs man.
There you go, copying my argumentative tactics and expression again.
By the way, you're wrong. Ronnie 2003 was huge all over, yes, but the problem is that this was a bad thing! He was huge where he shouldn't be and smallish where he should be larger. You're in moster delusion if you think that the 2003 Ronnie was anything but a huge turd. His glutes were huge, and they shouldn't be. His calves were small, and they shouldn't be. His gut was huge, and it shouldn't be. They also had no separations whatsoever. Get over it, kid. You lost the argument.
I never said that Ronnie's back in 03 grew proportionally the same as his legs. However, I don't feel this affected his symmetry.
But it did, and whether you think it did or not is immaterial, since bodybuilding contests are evaluated objectively in some respects, and it demonstrats that his legs were too huge for his upper body: hois quads overpowered his torso, and his hams and glutes overpowered his calves and back.
He still had the best back of all-time to go with a pair of the biggest legs ever.
Ronnie in 2003 did not have a great back. Look at how much separations he had in 1998 when he was 37 lbs lighter. He was very thick and wide, yes, but Dorian could hold his own againt the 2003 Ronnie. Coleman might be slightly bigger, but the difference is not that overwhelming. As for the legs, I'm sorry, sport, but you're wrong again. Look at the difference in proportionality between Dorian's back and his hams and calves and then compare it to Ronnie's in 2003. Clear difference.
If anything, I think his monstrous legs actually helped give him better balance. Ronnie in 03 had a sick X-taper that puts Dorian's H-taper to shame.
As I have already demonstrated, Dorian's taper was actually superior to Ronnie's from most angles and from most poses. "H-taper"? You're now a on Pumpster's level of idiocy.
there was no need to be profound when you didn't even refute me.
Oh, but I did refute you! Let's see. You claimed that the law of cause and effect is not explained by logic. I then counter-argued that logic and cause and effect are synonimous, and thus, it makes no sense to argue that it doesen't explain itself, because logic is a "language" that properties arbitrarily use to describe a pattern of interaction between themselves in an organized system. What this means, essentially, is that logic is axiomatic to the system it describes, and thus, does not need to justify itself. Let me give you and example: mathematics. It is bot axiomatic and abstract, because it describes truths that are only true if you accept that the axioms are irrefutable. In other words, mathematics can only possibly exist if you accept that there are numbers. But what are numbers? A pre-determined concept that limits are set, that units exist, and that the interaction between units can give rise to groups of units, etc. So, saying that the law of cause and effect does not explain logic is a tautalogy, based on trying to explain the rules of a system with the rules of the system.
Likwewise, if you do not accept that logic is an end in itself, then you cannot demonstrate that the Universe, or Reality, works coherently. But what is coherence? It is a pattern, arbitrarilly determined, of interaction between properties. Thus, the law of cause and effect is used to explain these pattern of interactions between the properties of a given system, but it cannot explain itself, in the same way that you cannot write an equation if you do not acknowlege the existence of numbers. This is why I entered into the topic of parallel universes: it is the only way to solve the paradox of logic. If we accept that logic is merely an arbitrary language of interaction between properties, then we accept that this is a problem of perception, and since there are infinite axioms to be accepted as a priori truths - because logic's authority is overruled "outside" the system it is used to describe -, then there are infinite universes or realities that are descibed my meta-logic.
This is not logic per se, but simply the "principle" that there are infinite numbers of logics, because meta-logic creates global coherence by accepting that, in a realm of infinite potentials, there is a "logic" or "reality" that globally explains the perceived incoherence of any given system. In other words, since logic is based on the acceptance of a priori truths, it cannot explain other "languages" used to describe other realitties, most of which eist merely as potantials. Meta-logic resolves this paradox by determining that there are no rules, because rules are imbeded in systems that are arbitrarilly coherent. So meta-logic is infinite potential which never contradicts itself because contradictions are an illusion caused by perception and descriptions of axioms within the system. Game over.
nice try dumbass, here's what you said earlier.
Who cares?
Where did I try to prove that I'm huge? I merely responded that I'm not a 100 lbs geek who never worked out. In fact, I weigh 186 lbs right now at 22 yrs old. I know I'm not a monster, by any means, but I'm willing to bet that I looked better at 19 than you did at your prime. I called you out to post a pic of yourself so that the world can see the physique you built with your supreme knowledge of bodybuilding. You are perfectly capable of criticizing others for the way they look, yet you are too much of a pussy to be judged by others. Don't be shy you little bitch of a man.
But i never made the claim that I posses a grwat physique, so I have nothing to prove. Waht if I posted the pic of a huge guy and said it was me, dumbshit? Would you be able to prove otherwise? No, so why the f**k even care. Geeez, you're dumb...and have a girlish physique to boot.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
