This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Word Wizard
Pages: 1 ... 464748 4950 ... 90
1411
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:54:30 PM »
Yep. No sprint please.
Sprint can be turned off
Not good enough. It needs to be out completely, or else maps will be built around sprint, and suck as a result.
Who's to say there isn't maps built around no sprint? Who are you to dictate what should and shouldn't be in the game?
Also, did you even play the beta? The maps that were in it could be used for both sprint or no sprint. They weren't big maps like Halo Reach and Halo 4. They're small arena maps like Halo used to be.
Truth is far more stretched than Midship.
1412
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:50:46 PM »
None, because I'm normal.
1413
« on: February 09, 2015, 04:50:00 PM »
I don't see the appeal of sticking your dick down a shit tube. Oral.
1414
« on: February 09, 2015, 01:15:14 PM »
I was gonna say I wish you weren't suffering, then I seen it was you.
1415
« on: February 08, 2015, 09:04:58 PM »
There's this dick game I play. I beat it in 5 minutes almost every time.
1416
« on: February 08, 2015, 08:53:04 PM »
*Insert Camcamm.jpeg*
Nexus
I convinced Kinder she shot amateur porn to supplement her income with her husband on B.next.
1417
« on: February 08, 2015, 08:16:27 PM »
*Insert Camcamm.jpeg*
1418
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:57:14 PM »
Deep
1419
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:30:23 PM »
Sure it wasn't chinese handcuffs? Those seem more your dick size.
1420
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:22:35 PM »
So was it just a test or did it go off in a city?
1421
« on: February 08, 2015, 07:40:45 AM »
Does anybody else remember a slut shaming thread on B.net and how Charlie said when he met his wife she was slutty? He went on to say how he loved it cause she was just his little slut. Giving the turn of not so recent events I thought that was ironic and funny as hell.
1422
« on: February 07, 2015, 10:10:49 PM »
bad rapper
p. sure this is common knowledge, anyway
1423
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:47:11 PM »
That shit isn't healthy yo'
Yeah it is cuzzz
heart rate is lower than most people
Big lung capacity
Less fat than most people
Muscles have power to push/pull hundreds of pounds multiple times
Denser bones
Gets more and better nutrients than 99% of people(through diet/supplements/vitamins)
Plus he's fookin aestheticccc
but staying at bodybuilder contest levels of (nearly nonexistent) body fat for extended periods of time is bad.
Only really low levels (less than 3-5% I believe).
4% is right around where that guy is.
No he's not, but he's definitely single digits.
I just noticed kinder offered his pic^^^
10-12% looks the most natural and attractive.
It's probably the most popular but I doubt a chick will turn a guy down for having 6-9% unless he's a total egotistical douche about it, kinda like a guy seeing a chick with a B cup. It's not quite a C but it's better than an A cup.
inb4Zen
>Because single digits are unattractive and pointless
lmao
Whatever you gotta do you justify being lazy and outta shape man.
You didn't even read the OP, did you?
Yep and I'm a 6'7" ex-Navy seal bro. I said it on the internet so it must be true.
Sorry, you're right. I'm actually 5'4" I weigh 270 lbs.
I haven't lifted my legs more than an inch in two years. 
Never said you were obese either.
1424
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:44:40 PM »
That shit isn't healthy yo'
Yeah it is cuzzz
heart rate is lower than most people
Big lung capacity
Less fat than most people
Muscles have power to push/pull hundreds of pounds multiple times
Denser bones
Gets more and better nutrients than 99% of people(through diet/supplements/vitamins)
Plus he's fookin aestheticccc
but staying at bodybuilder contest levels of (nearly nonexistent) body fat for extended periods of time is bad.
Only really low levels (less than 3-5% I believe).
4% is right around where that guy is.
No he's not, but he's definitely single digits.
I just noticed kinder offered his pic^^^
10-12% looks the most natural and attractive.
It's probably the most popular but I doubt a chick will turn a guy down for having 6-9% unless he's a total egotistical douche about it, kinda like a guy seeing a chick with a B cup. It's not quite a C but it's better than an A cup.
inb4Zen
>Because single digits are unattractive and pointless
lmao
Whatever you gotta do you justify being lazy and outta shape man.
You didn't even read the OP, did you?
Yep and I'm a 6'7" ex-Navy seal bro. I said it on the internet so it must be true.
1425
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:41:43 PM »
That shit isn't healthy yo'
Yeah it is cuzzz
heart rate is lower than most people
Big lung capacity
Less fat than most people
Muscles have power to push/pull hundreds of pounds multiple times
Denser bones
Gets more and better nutrients than 99% of people(through diet/supplements/vitamins)
Plus he's fookin aestheticccc
but staying at bodybuilder contest levels of (nearly nonexistent) body fat for extended periods of time is bad.
Only really low levels (less than 3-5% I believe).
4% is right around where that guy is.
No he's not, but he's definitely single digits.
I just noticed kinder offered his pic^^^
10-12% looks the most natural and attractive.
It's probably the most popular but I doubt a chick will turn a guy down for having 6-9% unless he's a total egotistical douche about it, kinda like a guy seeing a chick with a B cup. It's not quite a C but it's better than an A cup.
inb4Zen
>Because single digits are unattractive and pointless
lmao
Whatever you gotta do you justify being lazy and outta shape man.
1426
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:36:53 PM »
That shit isn't healthy yo'
Yeah it is cuzzz
heart rate is lower than most people
Big lung capacity
Less fat than most people
Muscles have power to push/pull hundreds of pounds multiple times
Denser bones
Gets more and better nutrients than 99% of people(through diet/supplements/vitamins)
Plus he's fookin aestheticccc
but staying at bodybuilder contest levels of (nearly nonexistent) body fat for extended periods of time is bad.
Only really low levels (less than 3-5% I believe).
4% is right around where that guy is.
No he's not, but he's definitely single digits.
I just noticed kinder offered his pic^^^
10-12% looks the most natural and attractive.
It's probably the most popular but I doubt a chick will turn a guy down for having 6-9% unless he's a total egotistical douche about it, kinda like a guy seeing a chick with a B cup. It's not quite a C but it's better than an A cup. inb4Zen inb4theotherpedoswait2late
1427
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:30:28 PM »
lmao
you're either trolling or hopelessly disillusioned.
Looks like your attempt at trolling failed and now you gotta resort to calling me being a troll. Better luck next time Skippy, and check your sources :^)
>Being this butthurt because I realized you were trolling
lmao
>He doesn't check his sources 
1428
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:24:43 PM »
lmao
you're either trolling or hopelessly disillusioned.
Looks like your attempt at trolling failed and now you gotta resort to calling me being a troll. Better luck next time Skippy, and check your sources :^)
1429
« on: February 07, 2015, 08:21:40 PM »
You didn't explicitly use the word sustainable, but your whole argument revolves around on the possibility the person will be put in situation they starve to lose muscle, which is unreasonable.
How is that unreasonable? Literally the reason anyone with a brain wants to gain muscle in the first place is to perform in difficult situations.
This is simply flawed. Most of these situations require you to expend energy, energy comes from body mass. When the majority of your expendable body mass is muscle you're going to lose muscle. Except when you continuously feed your body nutrients to make that energy. If you're just getting muscles to show you have them, you're an idiot. Full stop. Here's you trying to rationalize your inferiority again. But when the nutrients go away you're risking everything. In a first world country you don't have to worry about stores magically disappearing. >Higher endurance
http://www.lifefitness.com/blog/posts/muscle-strength-vs-muscle-endurance.html Doesn't disprove my point. An amateur body builder is still stronger and better conditioned than you. If you disagree you're free to show off your abilities to the contrary. >Higher sex appeal
http://www.askmen.com/dating/heidi_600/617_what-women-think-about-bodybuilders.html Random blog post talking about bulky body builders. P90X guys are also body builders. >Mentally stronger
Not even close. Put a body builder into ranger training.
They'll want out so fucking fast you wouldn't even believe. I was mainly referring in relation to you but also the average person. Body building builds confidence, requires consistency, persistence, and sacrifices to make substantial progress. Funny you have to resort to using the "toughest combat course in the world" as your argument. I wasn't even trying to say a body builder can do anything, just that to get in great shape takes certain traits that a lot of people lack (ex. most people failing their new years resolution to go to the gym in a month or eat healthy). Also,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10404822/Is-body-building-bad-for-soldiers-health.html
Body building is bad for anyone who actually needs to survive.
Did you even read the article? It's about soldiers taking steroids and contraband and over exerting themselves. Nothing about being too in shape.
1430
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:53:07 PM »
First world no, 3rd world yes.
1431
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:50:19 PM »
You said it was unsustainable, which I asked for a source. You still refuse and you're trying say you only thought it was stupid.
You only think it's a risk because of some random ass chance the person will be throw into some survival mode scenario. How many people in America randomly getting abducted and throw in the wilderness or in-prisoned without food? Most don't. Do you live in some state of perpetuating fear?
Quote me.
Do you live in some state of mind where you think that doing something for no good reason, and only adding risk to yourself is okay?
The reason most people actually want muscle and work out is for it's original purpose in evolution, to help keep you alive. The moment you take it too far and actually hurt your chances for survival is when you're officially an idiot.
He thinks single digit bodyfat% is healthy.
It's obvious he's a retard.
Below 5 percent may be, but show me evidence that with proper exercise and nutritition a BF% between 6-9% is unhealthy. I'll be waiting. Simple enough. In any emergency situation where you can't get enough nutrition you're going to be losing mass like a motherfucker.
In this case it's going to be your muscles instead of bf.
You didn't explicitly use the word sustainable, but your whole argument revolves around on the possibility the person will be put in situation they starve to lose muscle, which is unreasonable. Everything you do in life has a risk. With proper nutrient intake and exercise there is little to no risk. Pretty sure body builders are far more likely to survive than you. They are stronger, have higher endurance, and higher sex appeal than you. Body building is more than physical too. They are mentally stronger as well.
1432
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:09:46 PM »
check the easy access to sloot poosay when under 12%
even though jeff and crew act like full on homos
What the fuck is with the guy on the right's waist?
No bodyfat.
The guy on the right has more body fat than the guy on the left. It's more his body type and the way he built muscle that makes it look weird.
1433
« on: February 07, 2015, 06:06:39 PM »
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario.
You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not.
Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
There is no purpose to have anything lower than 12% bf in any situation, you're only adding extra risk to yourself. Making it an unhealthy choice.
Quit changing the subject. We're not arguing purpose, we're discussing sustainability in a controlled enviroment. Still waiting for one credibile study.
You don't need a credible study to realize that you're a fucking idiot to have less than 12% body fat.
How's it stupid, because you don't want it or can't get it? You haven't been able to prove it's unhealthy besides pointlessly repeating yourself, so it just sounds like you're trying to rationalize your inability/inferiority.
It's amazing how butthurt you are at the fact that I'm pointing out that having extremely low bf% is vain and dangerous is many situations.
Not butthurt, simply pointing out you still haven't been able to provide one source supporting the claim 6-9%bf is unsustainable. Not extremely low like below 5%, but 6-9%.
Because I don't need to.
It's simple logic.
Because you can't.
Sorry, let me use logic again.
>less than 10% bf
>Does nothing for you
>In a survival situation, your body will eat almost exclusively you muscle
>Losing muscle in a survival situation is damning
>Thus we can conclude that low bf% does not help in any way and can actually hurt you
There you go changing the subject again. You still haven't been able to provide one source supporting the claim 6-9%bf is unsustainable.
I never changed the subject you ponce.
This has been my argument from the fucking beginning.
It's retarded to have single digit bf because you're only adding risk to yourself.
I'm sorry you're too dense to understand that.
You said it was unsustainable, which I asked for a source. You still refuse and you're trying say you only thought it was stupid. You only think it's a risk because of some random ass chance the person will be throw into some survival mode scenario. How many people in America randomly getting abducted and throw in the wilderness or in-prisoned without food? Most don't. Do you live in some state of perpetuating fear?
1434
« on: February 07, 2015, 05:51:48 PM »
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario.
You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not.
Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
There is no purpose to have anything lower than 12% bf in any situation, you're only adding extra risk to yourself. Making it an unhealthy choice.
Quit changing the subject. We're not arguing purpose, we're discussing sustainability in a controlled enviroment. Still waiting for one credibile study.
You don't need a credible study to realize that you're a fucking idiot to have less than 12% body fat.
How's it stupid, because you don't want it or can't get it? You haven't been able to prove it's unhealthy besides pointlessly repeating yourself, so it just sounds like you're trying to rationalize your inability/inferiority.
It's amazing how butthurt you are at the fact that I'm pointing out that having extremely low bf% is vain and dangerous is many situations.
Not butthurt, simply pointing out you still haven't been able to provide one source supporting the claim 6-9%bf is unsustainable. Not extremely low like below 5%, but 6-9%.
Because I don't need to.
It's simple logic.
Because you can't.
Sorry, let me use logic again.
>less than 10% bf
>Does nothing for you
>In a survival situation, your body will eat almost exclusively you muscle
>Losing muscle in a survival situation is damning
>Thus we can conclude that low bf% does not help in any way and can actually hurt you
There you go changing the subject again. You still haven't been able to provide one source supporting the claim 6-9%bf is unsustainable.
1435
« on: February 07, 2015, 05:39:59 PM »
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario.
You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not.
Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
There is no purpose to have anything lower than 12% bf in any situation, you're only adding extra risk to yourself. Making it an unhealthy choice.
Quit changing the subject. We're not arguing purpose, we're discussing sustainability in a controlled enviroment. Still waiting for one credibile study.
You don't need a credible study to realize that you're a fucking idiot to have less than 12% body fat.
How's it stupid, because you don't want it or can't get it? You haven't been able to prove it's unhealthy besides pointlessly repeating yourself, so it just sounds like you're trying to rationalize your inability/inferiority.
It's amazing how butthurt you are at the fact that I'm pointing out that having extremely low bf% is vain and dangerous is many situations.
Not butthurt, simply pointing out you still haven't been able to provide one source supporting the claim 6-9%bf is unsustainable. Not extremely low like below 5%, but 6-9%.
Because I don't need to.
It's simple logic.
Because you can't.
1436
« on: February 07, 2015, 05:34:00 PM »
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario.
You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not.
Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
There is no purpose to have anything lower than 12% bf in any situation, you're only adding extra risk to yourself. Making it an unhealthy choice.
Quit changing the subject. We're not arguing purpose, we're discussing sustainability in a controlled enviroment. Still waiting for one credibile study.
You don't need a credible study to realize that you're a fucking idiot to have less than 12% body fat.
How's it stupid, because you don't want it or can't get it? You haven't been able to prove it's unhealthy besides pointlessly repeating yourself, so it just sounds like you're trying to rationalize your inability/inferiority.
It's amazing how butthurt you are at the fact that I'm pointing out that having extremely low bf% is vain and dangerous is many situations.
Not butthurt, simply pointing out you still haven't been able to provide one source supporting the claim 6-9%bf is unsustainable. Not extremely low like below 5%, but 6-9%. At your edit: No one accidently gets 7% body fat while maintaining muscle mass. They obviously have a reason so it's not pointless for them. Body building builds character and improves one mentally as well as physically.
1437
« on: February 07, 2015, 05:29:40 PM »
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario.
You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not.
Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
There is no purpose to have anything lower than 12% bf in any situation, you're only adding extra risk to yourself. Making it an unhealthy choice.
Quit changing the subject. We're not arguing purpose, we're discussing sustainability in a controlled enviroment. Still waiting for one credibile study.
You don't need a credible study to realize that you're a fucking idiot to have less than 12% body fat.
How's it stupid, because you don't want it or can't get it? You haven't been able to prove it's unhealthy besides pointlessly repeating yourself, so it just sounds like you're trying to rationalize your inability/inferiority.
1438
« on: February 07, 2015, 04:34:56 PM »
Spread the freedom to all.
1439
« on: February 07, 2015, 04:00:07 PM »
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario.
You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not.
Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
There is no purpose to have anything lower than 12% bf in any situation, you're only adding extra risk to yourself. Making it an unhealthy choice.
Quit changing the subject. We're not arguing purpose, we're discussing sustainability in a controlled enviroment. Still waiting for one credibile study.
1440
« on: February 07, 2015, 02:11:29 PM »
That shit isn't healthy yo'
Yeah it is cuzzz
heart rate is lower than most people
Big lung capacity
Less fat than most people
Muscles have power to push/pull hundreds of pounds multiple times
Denser bones
Gets more and better nutrients than 99% of people(through diet/supplements/vitamins)
Plus he's fookin aestheticccc
Having a very small amount of body fat is actually very unhealthy.
>Things fat people say
>10 1/2 stone
>
nigga do you actually think 10 1/2 stone is fat?
He thinks single digit bodyfat% is healthy.
It's obvious he's a retard.
Below 5 percent may be, but show me evidence that with proper exercise and nutritition a BF% between 6-9% is unhealthy. I'll be waiting.
Simple enough. In any emergency situation where you can't get enough nutrition you're going to be losing mass like a motherfucker.
In this case it's going to be your muscles instead of bf.
Health isn't measured by emergency situations. Show me a study or some backed evidence that people 6-9% body fat in men is unhealthy for extended periods of time, even with proper nutrients, sleep, and exercise.
lmao.
"Here's evidence it's not good."
"That's not the evidence I'm looking for"
Get out.
One, that's not evidence. Second, being healthy isn't defined by how long you can starve yourself. Now do you a have study or are you just going to continue spewing conjecture?
It was evidence and you're denying it.
When you don't have fat your body starts eating muscle.
>It's completely healthy to risk losing muscle in an emergency situation
You're some sort of retarded.
No one is healthy starving you fucking dolt. Health isn't measured on how long you can starve. Health is defined as being free from illness or injury. Doctors don't do check ups to see how long you can survive without eating. I do not know why you are basing health on the potential of losing muscle in a random scenario. You said it was unhealthy to maintain a low bf%. I said with proper nutrients and exercise, it was. I was never debating whether starving someone was healthy or not. Now, do you or do you not have any studies or backed up evidence that with proper nutrients (not starving) and exercise, 6-9% bf is unsustainable?
Pages: 1 ... 464748 4950 ... 90
|
Show Posts
