Tarz

People are rightly commentating on grip type and width, but also important when considering pull-ups is how far people actually chin up.

Some people’s hair only reaches the bar, others it would by eye/nose level, but for me a chin up is exactly that – my chin is clear above the bar.

Also, do people fully lower themselves? A lot of people only lower themselves part-way – so they are not totally ‘hanging’ – which if so it’s then easier to do another chin-up if you’re not actually fully extended and still have arms partly bent. Same for swinging – you see so many people twisting their legs trying to get momentum.

10 strict chin-ups would actually be a better accomplishment than someone doing 15-20 who doesn’t raise and lower themselves from the bar properly with legs kicking all over the place.

So a chin-up is not always actually a chin-up and I always think contests like this should be treated with caution as you don’t know people’s form and technique, which for this particular exercise is not always that strict.

Blood. If I were to die I'd take someone elses. I'm not a Johobo's Witness.

Interesting point.

IYM: what if you unfortunately had an accident sometime and needed a transfusion, is there a way of getting over to the medics - like some card you'd carry on you - if you're unconscious or not coherent that you oppose transfusion on non-religious grounds?

Or would they go ahead and give you blood - against your wishes/ethics - as presumably they'd have no way of knowing your views on this?

I've seen one when I was in Azerbaijan back in 2003:

http://www.cosmicparadigm.com/ufonews/2003/06/truth-is-out-there-in-baku.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread10013/pg1

http://www.ufoinfo.com/filer/2003/ff0322.shtml

Seriously, you're right, I would like to have a chance to survive. Therefore, I should donate blood. Just once. Because I may need a blood transfusion one day in the future. Everybody should donate blood one time, therefore we do a fair trade in exchange of a chance to live again in case of emergency. Because everybody potentially need blood transfusion.

 

But I won't donate blood more than once

The thing is though the amount you may one day require in a transfusion - and I hope you never need to receive blood but as people have already said you never know, especially with accidents - may be much, much more than you yourself have given in your single, one-off donation.

Some people lose incredible amounts of blood - so much so it's amazing they in fact survive - and need many, many pints of blood (provided in multiple donations by many people) in order to survive.

Also whats to say that you won't require multiple donations at various times in your life?

So your single donation may not necessarily be a fair trade.

No I don't intend to be a Virgin forever. But I do intend to only sleep with that one special person I love. I haven't found her yet. But when I do it will only be her I sleep with.

 

And before you come back and say," Well she may be HIV positive and give it to you," I'll make sure that's not the case. I'll insist that we both get ourselves checked out( Even though I am a virgin I wouldn't mind. It's so she would feel more comfortable )

I realised your actual status is different to what you were originally alluding to - I can comprehend what if means.

You were speaking of a hypothetical situation.

If you were a gay man, so I deduced that you were not.

If you gave blood and lied about it as a gay man, that is infering that you would be engaging in gay sex, otherwise there is no reason for you to lie as there is nothing for you to hide.

Regardless of whether this was something you had done, would one day do or would never do, I still thought your remarks were out of order.

It wouldn't be Russian Roulette. I'm a Virgin. so it would be impossible for me to even have the HIV Virus

I'm not sure if you intend to always be a virgin so that may change. Just because you - or anyone else - are not a carrier at this moment in time does not necessarily mean this will always be the case so it could still be an issue in the future.

Circumstances change.

Anybody - gay or straight - could go from being non-positive and giving blood for years to being infected and no longer being able to donate.

If I were Gay I'd just lie and still give blood.

That'd be big of you, playing Russian roulette with people's lives who you are supposedly be meant to be helping.

I believe that blood is screened regardless, but I can't see what lying would achieve.

As RTascajr described there are valid reasons why it is necessary to declare this information.

Giovanni products.

I got some of their hair stuff when I was in Canada - you can get hold of it here at last, a bit pricey though.

Aubrey do some good stuff too - them and Giovanni both have a great range.

Ha wrote he does not eat out of shell nuts, not that he does not purchase out of shell nuts.

You could infer that ha is still eating an out of shell nut – something he says he does not do – regardless of whether he has just shelled it himself or if it was shelled some time ago at some processing and packaging plant.

i do not eat out of shell nuts

Does that mean ha you don't eat hard shell nuts? Or you eat the hard shell as well, which if so must be hard going on your teeth as some shells are very hard?

But there's no reason why a raw foodist shouldn't look as good or better than any natural bb or natural athlete. There are many high school kids that are natural that are bigger, stronger and have a much better phyique than him.

A fairer comparison would be with 49 year old natural BB or natural athlete.

I think he looks great, especially compared to your average 49 year old male – obese, unfit etc.

Also there are many natural athletes who have a similar size and musculature to Charlie. Not everyone wants to be – or can be - ‘big’ in the sense of what constitutes big in natural bodybuilding or in the grotesque pumped up steroid way.

Genes play a part too – if you were born to be short, have relatively low bodyweight etc – then that’s going to effect your progress and limit what you can achieve whatever diet you follow.

Not sure where this idea comes from to be a good bodybuilder you have to be huge or have mass. Not everyone wants to look bulked up – you can still have a good physique whilst being lean and ripped.

EDIT - I was typing this post whilst Katabatic posted his, so didn't mean to repeat his comments about genetics and being huge - we were just thinking the same and typing it at the same time.

In a way at least the Chinese don't have the hypocrisy - in that they will just about eat any animal and any part of it - that Western culture does which deems it acceptable to eat certain animals yet abhorrent to eat certain other species.

Companies are not charities. They do help people if they provide them with employment. Or perhaps you'd rather the workers continue to work the land and for local corporations for less pay and in inferior conditions?

Multinationals are a good thing if in working for one you have improved your situation.

Earth. What’s it like over on Cloud Cuckoo Land?

Yes, precisely because these economies are primarily rural, workers migrate to urban areas for an increased salary.

You have no idea of working conditions in non-multinational organisations or in rural areas.

Their wages may - in some cases - still be low, but the fact remains that they are still higher than they were beforehand, so how can they not – financially at least – be better off?

They are investing in countries and creating jobs.

Are you really that bothered that I do not know the precise cost of chewing gum in the US?

Considered giving them both up as I'm sure one or the other - or maybe both - is responsible for my bloating, but don't think I could do it.

Ought to try to keep them both to a minimum though.

Rosa Mosqueta oil is supposed to be good for scars.

Sunshine and seawater is great for acne.

Oh and while I am at it, It is easy for you to sit here, on your privileged Canadian ass, and make judgments about what it might be like trying to survive on practically nothing. It makes it easier for you, anything to make your consumer addicted, money grubbing society seem ok.

 

I would hardly say these people are in better conditions, but for the sake of the argument I will submit to you that maybe, just maybe they are in better conditions for the short term. However there is a much larger picture here. They have essentially secured that for the foreseeable future these are the best conditions they will have. Instead of being able to revolutionize and develop from the inside, they will be held captive. Because of the way the system is designed, very few people inside these countries will ever be able to make enough capital to develop their own ideas, and their own companies. You see when all the wealth is being accumulated by companies and persons based outside of the country, it means none of that wealth gets returned to that population and that country.

 

Id also like to add, you have got a history of suggesting its ok to exploit people to get the things you want. You also have a history of excusing things in such a way that it isn't exploitation, it isn't sexism because they CHOSE to do it. Tarz, I wonder if you have any idea how full of shit you really are. Not to mention if you think you can buy bubble gum for 8 cents youve got another thing coming.

What you fail to understand though what you consider to be practically nothing can in real terms be a substantial amount in another economy.

They are not captives – they are employees enjoying better conditions and pay than if they continued to work in the rural economy or for local manufacturers. You would deny them that opportunity though.

Of course, the Third World has no local companies to speak of whatsoever, the only companies present there are multinationals… Are you seriously suggesting that before multinationals started investing there was no local manufacturing base whatsoever, there where no companies? That from here on in the only companies to start up will be multinationals?

Add what you like, it will be the usual nonsense you come out with. I’m making the point that contrary to what you spout, people are actually better off. I am in favour of letting people do what they want free from the attention of interfering naunces who stick their noses in where it isn’t wanted and who mistakenly thinking they know best and have the solutions to all the world’s problems and who take it upon themselves to tell people how they can and can’t behave. Well on the shit scale I know I don’t even begin to come close to you. In fact you’re off the scale.

I’m not American – nor am I Canadian – so I have fuck all interest how much gum costs in the states. For the record I was referring to a single piece of gum - maybe you have to buy a pack in the US, either way I don't care.

It shows Nike factory and living conditions for what they are. But you're the know it all, you should know all about it right?

It's funny that if these multinationals are oh so evil, people only name-check the same old companies. What about all the other multinationals that employ workers in the third world - are you suggesting that they all share the same practices as Nike?

My point is that working for Nike and it's living conditions may still be better - not in all cases though, there will be exceptions - than toiling in the fields or working for a local manufacturer where conditions and pay are actually worse.

Telling people what to watch now as well as read...

I'm not watching it - you should be able to argue a case without it.

Take a look at Chinese animal welfare practices. There’s really not that much difference between US and European animal production, despite greater awareness and campaigning.

Someone is better off if they are earning more by no longer having to work in the fields or by working for a local company that pays less than a multinational. I never said that they could not be better off still. I was just acknowledging that they used to be worse off – if not so many people would not chose to be employed in such a manner and they would continue to sow the land and work for local companies.

The cost of living is very important, as the equivalent of 8 cents pay in country x purchases a lot more than it does in the US. I’m not American, but guess you can buy a bubble gum for that amount in the US, but would be able to purchase a meal for that amount in the third world. You have to factor in exchange rates and local costs – what a Westerner would consider a paltry amount could actually be a lot for someone in the third world.

By the way, try reading something other than (or in addition to) Chomsky and the sharpened rhetoric of activist literature before you blindly accuse me of not reading enough, dipshit. And while we're on the topic of reading I'd also like to point out something else that has obviously evaded you (coming from someone who has probably done more reading than you or anyone you know) reading doesn't make you smart: it just makes you well read, and maybe gives you a broader perspective of the world.

Well put jaleel.

The walking encyclopaedia and fountain of all knowledge, Mr Know It All darth has this habit of accusing people who don’t agree with him of not being well read and takes it upon himself to tell others what they should or shouldn’t be reading. You can only participate in a discussion if darth deems you learned and educated enough and you read the same books that he does.

The capitalist system cares only for profit, it is the very reason that animals are exploited for the sake of humans.

That’s a new one on me. Didn’t realise that the pre-capitalist society’s and communists didn’t eat or use animals in any way.

You tell someone poor woman feeding a family of 4 on the 8 cents a day she gets from making Nike's for your privileged white friends that she is much "better off".

I’d tell her that if she was earning half of that amount either out on the land or working in a factory for a non-Western corporation. Why do lefties always have trouble comprehending exchange rates and local cost of living, and always seem to forget too that pay in the third world actually goes - a lot - further than the same amount would in the US.

No-one is above criticism Rob, no-one is beyond reproach.

We've all got our positive and negative aspects.

I think you are unnecessarily polarising things here. Just because some people don't agree with all that you do and/or the way you go about it, doesn't mean people hate you for it.

Even those who are happy with you and admire you will not back you 100% on everything you do.

It's not a matter of completely opposing or completely supporting someone - you or anyone - as it's never that simple.

There are a few threads on this forum, such as this one, that do nothing positive, IMO. If someone has a question about Robert's actions then that person should email Robert instead of starting a public discussion. As some of you may know, our posts here and even our pms are being reposted on other sites. I've seen this happen with other forums in the past. A few people are unhappy with one forum so they join a new one and start blasting the old one. Nothing constructive comes from this.

 

These types of threads don't fit with the mission of this forum and may turn off potential members and/or new members. I think we've talked about this enough. Two members have been banned in the last year (out of a total of 4 since the site started). Robert had his reasons for doing so and no one has a "right" to post here. It's not like we pay a fee for joining.

 

If you don't like how things are done here then please just leave and take your negativity with you. If you have questions for Robert then please contact him privately and keep your conversation PRIVATE.

 

I am asking that Robert and or the moderators remove these threads that question the banning of members. If I were scanning this forum and thinking of joining, this would not encourage me to join. Additionally, these threads make enough current members uncomfortable enough to stop posting.

Talk about brushing issues under the carpet...

Why does everything have to be positive?

Obviously there are issues why people are being removed without being told and also if fellow forum members aren't being notified i) that person x has been deleted ii) and the reasons for doing so. Enough people have posted in this and Potter's thread expressing concern over this so deleting threads and pretending everything is OK is somewhat putting one's head in the sand.

The whole 'if you don't like it, go' attitude is rather childish and immature too. So if people don't agree with certain aspects of the way the forum is run, they should leave completely? So someone like Flanders - a long-time member, much-liked - should go as he has misgivings over what happened to Potter? So anyone who has understandable concerns over this has too much negativity and should remove themselves from the forum? Rather odd.

Well others think this hasn't been talked about enough, given that others continue to post and debate and discuss this.

our FRIEND Veganpotter, who contributed nearly 10,000 posts to this board was simply deleted without so much as a epitaph. Maybe that's how some of you treat your friends, but it doesn't sit well with most of us.

Word.

I like(d) Potter and his posts a lot. Tells it as he see's it, straight to the point, no pussyfooting around and not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Potter was part of this forum, won't be the same without him.