# Size = Knowledge?



## Training God (Oct 31, 2002)

**** It was a shame I couldn't respond to Twin Peaks last post. So, I was hoping that we could exchange some meaningful responses with one another on this topic.

Originally posted by Training God 
*** Exactly, but the size of someone should not determine what kind of knowledge they posses. In my last post I mentioned some 
professionals who are not considered big by bodybuilding standards yet they posses quite a bit of knowledge that thousands of people hold in high regard. I personally don't care how big the guy is. If someone can present me with information that produces results that's what matters. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Twin Peaks said,
My opinion -- size IS NOT knowledge, but it certainly demostrates knowledge. One can theorize all s/he/ wants, one can show through various scientifically controlled studies of how this suppliment effects that hormone, but until one can show that these theories or even scientific truths actually effect the human physique in a way that is GENERALLY superior to other methods, it is JUST a theory.

*** This I agree with. 

When an individual has been able to "make it work" with there own body, it is a credential, an element of proof that s/he has SOME knowledge.

Are there better ways? Faster ways? More efficient ways? Almost always the answer will be yes. But it is boards like these that let us examine one individuals path to success and determine whether it might be a road we should take.

*** I think you are missing my point that I was touching upon. That was, there are many trainers out there today who are held up as experts and should be. Why, because they have produced not only results in a wide variety of people but dramatic ones at that. Are they muscular, no. But they posses the experience, smarts and the ability to apply this knowledge in the right situations. That is what I'm look for when I talk to someone.

Sure,  being able to transform ones body through practicing what you preach is great, and I don't think there is anything wrong with this. However, even with this I think many people will look at someone whos physique is mediocure in comparison to someone else and make a sweeping generalization that the individual who is less muscular does not know as much.


But, GoPro, or anyone else MAY be immune and is certainly entitled to believe and state that he is immune. That belief certainly should not offend anyone, and of course, we are entitled to disagree.

*** Sure they are enitled to this belief but people are also entitled to expressing their opinion that they are misinformed.
I would never be offended by someones opinion or beliefs. What I would feel though is the need to speak my piece because of my own beliefs.


----------



## ponyboy (Oct 31, 2002)

Just out of interest, why would you start a thread with the expressed intent of continuing a discussion where probably neither of you is 100% correct?  Can't you just agree that you have differing opinions and stop trying to prove yourself right?  

If you feel like having a debate with someone about a topic, PM them instead.  The rest of us probably really don't care.  I know I don't.


----------



## Training God (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by ponyboy *_
> Just out of interest, why would you start a thread with the expressed intent of continuing a discussion where probably neither of you is 100% correct?  Can't you just agree that you have differing opinions and stop trying to prove yourself right?
> 
> If you feel like having a debate with someone about a topic, PM them instead.  The rest of us probably really don't care.  I know I don't.



*** Good gosh, then ignore the thread!
You don't like, don't post.  

A board is all about expressing opinions and sharing thought, hopefully in the process some people can base their own beliefs on some of what has been discussed.
That is all.


----------



## Snake_Eyes (Oct 31, 2002)

I have to agree. I'm not large nor am I terribly strong.

However my knowledge about the subject, both in "theoretical" terms and in applied situations is quote thorough. 

If you were to ignore what someone has to say simply because someone bigger contradicts that person, you're selling yourself short and closing doors that might have led to better knowledge.

Think about it. A professional BBer sitting at 280 lbs, <10% BF was most likely already a big guy, at the very least had excellent genetics for that body type, and has used *lots* of drugs to reach and maintain that state. 

On the other hand. You've got a natural guy, mediocre genetics, small frame, who simply isn't predisposed to have that kind of size (myself case in point)-- however, that guy manages to amass a large volume of "book" knowledge while simultaneously working past those genetic limitations. He's still comparatively "small" and "weak" compared to the bigger guys, but has made remarkable progress considering what he has to work with; he's been in the gym and done things that he'd never have expected, and continues to make progress largely by applying what he's learned.

Who's more worth listening to? The guy that basically had it handed to him, or the guy that's not a superhuman beast but has worked for every lb of muscle and on the bar, both in the gym and by reading?


----------



## Scotty the Body (Oct 31, 2002)

> *** Exactly, but the size of someone should not determine what kind of knowledge they posses.



Although I totally agree with you, when it comes down to it, most people will chose someone they think has been there, gone from what they are now to where they'd like to be. 

In many cases, personal experience outweighs scientific studies and degrees. You can post all the data you want, I will consider it but at the end, I would probably try what has worked for others in my position rather than what a book might say. 

There is so much grey area in our sport, no one person has all the right answers, we need to learn from others and find out what works best for us, there is no Right or Wrong thing for everyone but there are general guidelines everyone can start from.


----------



## Training God (Oct 31, 2002)

Nice post Snake Eyes.


----------



## Scotty the Body (Oct 31, 2002)

And I totally mean no offense to you Ponyboy (even though I probably shouldn't say anything cause it will cause trouble) 
It really bugs me when people post to complain about the relevance of a thread, why not just ignore it and move on????


----------



## Snake_Eyes (Oct 31, 2002)

_*Originally posted by Scotty the Body *_
*Although I totally agree with you, when it comes down to it, most people will chose someone they think has been there, gone from what they are now to where they'd like to be. *

Unfortunately this is true. 

*In many cases, personal experience outweighs scientific studies and degrees. You can post all the data you want, I will consider it but at the end, I would probably try what has worked for others in my position rather than what a book might say. *

Personal experience also counts as being able to understand that scientific knowledge, extract useful info from it, and apply it to the situation as required. 

*There is so much grey area in our sport, no one person has all the right answers, we need to learn from others and find out what works best for us, there is no Right or Wrong thing for everyone but there are general guidelines everyone can start from. *

Exactly. 

Scotty, I want you to know that I highly respect you for being one of few people I've seen here that seems to be level-headed and capable of objectively debating things without resorting to cheap shots and insults. That's a nice breath of fresh air.


----------



## Scotty the Body (Oct 31, 2002)

Thanks Snake.  
We all have the same goals


----------



## Twin Peak (Oct 31, 2002)

*I think you are missing my point that I was touching upon. That was, there are many trainers out there today who are held up as experts and should be. Why, because they have produced not only results in a wide variety of people but dramatic ones at that. Are they muscular, no. But they posses the experience, smarts and the ability to apply this knowledge in the right situations. That is what I'm look for when I talk to someone.* 

I agree.  But these people you talk of are individuals who have "made it work" just not with there own bodies.  Isn't that the case?

*If you were to ignore what someone has to say simply because someone bigger contradicts that person, you're selling yourself short and closing doors that might have led to better knowledge.* 

Snake, I agree.

*Think about it. A professional BBer sitting at 280 lbs, <10% BF was most likely already a big guy, at the very least had excellent genetics for that body type, and has used *lots* of drugs to reach and maintain that state. 

On the other hand. You've got a natural guy, mediocre genetics, small frame, who simply isn't predisposed to have that kind of size (myself case in point)-- however, that guy manages to amass a large volume of "book" knowledge while simultaneously working past those genetic limitations. He's still comparatively "small" and "weak" compared to the bigger guys, but has made remarkable progress considering what he has to work with; he's been in the gym and done things that he'd never have expected, and continues to make progress largely by applying what he's learned.

Who's more worth listening to? The guy that basically had it handed to him, or the guy that's not a superhuman beast but has worked for every lb of muscle and on the bar, both in the gym and by reading?*

Snake, this is a whole different topic.  In this case you are saying that while in absolute terms person A is bigger, but in relative terms, person B has had MORE success.  I'd go with more success anytime.  You have just proved  that it is worthwhile to know someones background, which I further agree with.

To SE and TG, you have raised an interesting point which is very subtle.

Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?

I choose B.

P.S.  I am offended that Scotty got kudos and I didn't!


----------



## naturaltan (Oct 31, 2002)

I like the point made about one selling themselves short by not listening to anyone with 'book' knowledge.  

Personally, if I was given a picture and had to choose froma  book smart trainer compared to the other who had a better physique, I'd choose the physique.  But ... would I discredit anything a bood smart individual has to say - absolutely not.  As Scotty has said so well, we're all working towards basically the same goal.  So, get as much knowledge as you can from as many sources as you can and whittle down to what works best for you ... because in the end, you know your body better than anyone else.


----------



## gopro (Oct 31, 2002)

Man...I just love being REALLY BIG and REALLY KNOWLEDGABLE...


----------



## shooter (Oct 31, 2002)

Now this is a thread worth reading. 

Natural Tan Wrote:

"Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?"

I would agree that in this case I would probably follow B's advice. I wonder though how similar/different the advice from indidviduals A and B would be. I personally think that "the basics" are the basics, and people then develope from "the basics" based on "feel, experimentation, trial and error ect."

Once again, great thread, interesting topic, very thought provoking.


----------



## gopro (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Snake_Eyes *_
> I have to agree. I'm not large nor am I terribly strong.
> 
> However my knowledge about the subject, both in "theoretical" terms and in applied situations is quote thorough.
> ...



I agree with this...

...but what about a guy that has mediocre genetics, a small frame, thin bones, and zero muscle or strength to start and then transforms himself with NO DRUGS into someone that is VERY strong and VERY large using knowledge based on years and years ofexperience with self and a large population of individuals AND "book" knowledge AND consultation with other "experts" in the field...now thats who I'd listen to...

...by the way, most pro bodybuilders I've met have little knowledge of anything except for drug cycles.


----------



## Scotty the Body (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> 
> 
> I agree with this...
> ...



I think you'd be silly not to listen to this guy, I've heard he's pretty cool to but You'd be short changing yourself if you didn't listen to others and formulate your own opinion on whats the best for you.


----------



## gopro (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Snake_Eyes *_
> 
> 
> I'd first off say that person hardly had mediocre genetics, for one. There's only so much that application of knowledge can do.
> ...



Maybe you ARE missing something...maybe you ARE doing something wrong, or should I say, not optimally. Maybe you CAN be 220 lbs and just don't know it. This is not meant to be argumentative...I'm being serious.

If you could have seen the body I started with, you would have told me to be a professional stick, not a bodybuilder. Since you can't attribute my size/strength to drugs are you going to say I must have superior genetics?


----------



## Scotty the Body (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Snake_Eyes *_
> 
> For example, I will probably never see a lean 220 lbs unless I use drugs. That has nothing to do with my knowledge or ability to apply it. It has to do with the fact that my body simply doesn't have the ability, in terms of hormones, adaptation to stress, bone structure, etc etc etc, to reach that state without chemical assistance.
> 
> It doesn't mean I'm missing something, or doing something wrong. Or that anyone else could tell me how to do it better. It just means that I have genetics which aren't conducive to tremendous gains in mass. All the knowledge in the world can't change that.



When I leaned out at 170lb 4 years ago, I would have agreed with you but since finding help sites like this one, I've gotten up to 215 and will cut down to a lean 200 by the end of the year. 

I don't have the best genetics either but I think it is possible for me to still see a lean 220 before good gains are a thing of the past for me. 

Don't cut yourself short Snake.


----------



## gopro (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Scotty the Body *_
> 
> 
> I think you'd be silly not to listen to this guy, I've heard he's pretty cool to but You'd be short changing yourself if you didn't listen to others and formulate your own opinion on whats the best for you.



Oh, I'm sure he is wise enough to listen to others that have intelligent things to say


----------



## Snake_Eyes (Oct 31, 2002)

Gopro: I understand what you're saying. I know that its certainly *possible* to get to that size; however, for that to happen will take years, and further it will require that I *want* it to happen. At this point its not a goal on my list.

Regarding your genetics: Yes, I'd say you do. Genetics for developing size can be largely independent of the person's original state, especially if the lifter starts comparatively young.


----------



## Arnold (Oct 31, 2002)

I agree that genetics are very difficult to over come, especially for a natural lifter.


----------



## Twin Peak (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by shooter *_
> Now this is a thread worth reading.
> 
> Natural Tan Wrote:
> ...



Damn, don't I get any respect?  Um, I wrote that!


----------



## Twin Peak (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Snake_Eyes *_
> Regarding your genetics: Yes, I'd say you do. Genetics for developing size can be largely independent of the person's original state.



I totally agree with this.  Many pro bodybuilders start as sticks due to an abnormally fast metabolism.  Once they over come this they are able to put on significant size because of the enormous amounts of food they can consume w/o getting fat.

Personally, I have very good genes for gaining muscle strength.  I also have genes that want to keep me quite plump.  So its a delicate balance.

BTW, I too, really like this thread!


----------



## kuso (Oct 31, 2002)

IMHO size is irrelevent in reguards to a persons knowledge, the old book by it`s cover and all that, but a persons condition is another thing.

TG, you mention Lyle amoungst others in the other thread, and while I`ve only ever seen one pic of him, and he is not a BB`er, but he sure isn`t some fat slob either, he is in good condition.


----------



## Training God (Oct 31, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> *I think you are missing my point that I was touching upon. That was, there are many trainers out there today who are held up as experts and should be. Why, because they have produced not only results in a wide variety of people but dramatic ones at that. Are they muscular, no. But they posses the experience, smarts and the ability to apply this knowledge in the right situations. That is what I'm look for when I talk to someone.*
> 
> Twin Peaks said,
> ...


----------



## Trap-isaurus (Oct 31, 2002)

IMO size brings with it practically applied expereince, lots of trial and error, most likely advice from countless others, and again trial and error upon what advice has been given.

I think this thread probably started because of a comment I made in another thread, I will say the personally I will probably take the advice of someone who has been there done that over someone has alot of "Book lifting" under their belt, for the reasons I stated above.

It's also how the information is presented to me, if it's presented in away that I find abusive, argumentative, for the sole purpose of causing a conflict then I won't respond to it or respond negatively......... doesn't matter who the individual is or the size of said individual. 

I usually work twelve hours a day, I spend an hour at the gym and I try for a minimum 8 hours of sleep as well as taking univers. courses correspondance for work, spend an hour each night on that as well. twenty two hours of my day gone, leaves me three hours for other things I enjoy each day. I don't feel I have the time to read books and interpret sceintific information or the time to apply "theries" of people who do alot of reading or things that "should work" because so and so read it in a book by john doe. so I like to seek out information by people who have been there done that so to speak.....(usually an individual of greater size than most due to the amount of time spent in the gym) and get advice on what does work and what doesn't work.


----------



## Twin Peak (Oct 31, 2002)

*No, they haven't. None of them display levels of muscularity that are beyond avegrae. *

Sorry, TG you missed my point, they HAVE made it work just through countless other people right?  That is all I meant!


----------



## Training God (Oct 31, 2002)

Right,  that's the whole point we're discussing. 

You said,
Who would you rather listen to: (A) a person who can prove that a training style/techinque/diet SHOULD work on the human body in a superior way to other techinues/diets, and can back that up through various controlled studies, and by explaining the way the nutrition effects the hormones, etc, the techinques effect muscle growth etc, or (B) the person who has no studies, does not undertstand the intricasies of human physiology, etc but has, through trial and error learned what techniques and diets work, and has transformed his own body naturally, as well as others whom he has trained, as well as others whom he has given guidance?

The point I was making is that "A" is the category these folks fall under. Not "B." Which you chose.

My own expertise would be in the first category. I would never want people listening to me because of my size, rather my knolwedge and how I apply it. And I'm not that big, actually I'm small.


----------



## lean_n_76er (Oct 31, 2002)

OK - serious question.  With all the debating going on, who is more suited to obtain the best knowledge from?  

I, like snake eyes am a hard gainer (I assume this from your post), and have been able to obtain 220 lbs through diet, training and supps.  I'm now down to 200, due to a few weeks off and diet before the wedding (not that you all care).  I would like to obtain 225, with the least amount of BF possible.  So, in theory, I'm guessing that I would have to reach 235 or more in order to lean out to 225.  

I have gained my best knowledge through this board and it's members.  My training has improved and my diet (Thanks DPW8).  My routine on the other hand needs work.  I trust MOST of the members postings because MOST of them back it up with posted results (and yes they may just be that, posted).  

I guess most of this has nothing to do with this thread, but I wanted to say that knowledge can be obtained through both persons (experience and books).  It just depends who you put most of your trust in.  It's all YOUR decision.  No one elses.  and that's all I have to say about that.  Peace


----------



## gopro (Nov 1, 2002)

To Training God:

To answer your question...yes, I have gone to seminars, read books, etc by people that are smaller than me...but MOST of the time its b/c I'm interested in disscussing another branch of fitness aside from bodybuilding, since 85% of my clientele have non-BBing goals. 

Yes, I have gone to seminars put on by IFBB pro BBers, but that is more for entertainment value than anything, with a few exceptions...

-Yates
-Mentzer
-Labrada
-LaCour

...and a few other very successful naturals.


----------



## ZECH (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> 
> ...by the way, most pro bodybuilders I've met have little knowledge of anything except for drug cycles.



A buddy of mine just met Jay Cutler at this past O. He said he was really unimpressed by the way he acted. He said he seemed in a daze and hardly even responded to a question and he really questioned if Jay even knew he was there. He was either 1)High on some drug or 2) burnt out on some drug.


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Training God *_
> Right,  that's the whole point we're discussing.
> 
> The point I was making is that "A" is the category these folks fall under. Not "B." Which you chose.
> ...



Well, there is a subtle difference.  IMO, guys who have "made it happen" to other people, just not themselves, are different from those who have solely obtained their knowledge through reading.  For example, I don't know your history, but you say you are small, and lets assume not well conditioned.  Lets further assume that you have never trained another, never guided anothers nutrition, whether in person or virtually.  Yet, let's assume, you are so smart you fully comprehend the teachings of the various persons you mentioned, or even men like Yates and Mentzer.  Lets assume you have read all the studies, spent years learning biomechanics, physiology, anatomy, chemistry all in  the context of bodybuilding.

That is the type of individual I am talking of.  The with a deep KNOWLEDGE but no history of application.  Because despite all the studies, I believe that the human body is a very unique and complex machine, it is the successful application that I am interested in.

TG, you know what?  After all this debating I think the bottom line is that we are in total agreement.  We would both listen to the individual who has in real life situations, take principles and theories of bodybuilding and made them work.  It is unimportant HOW they have made them work (on themself or on others).

So, we are back to credentials.  And in the end, I think we agree on this.  At least as to  the "experts".  

Perhaps this conversation is more appropriate for us lay folk. Perhaps the question should be, when getting advise form a non professional, non-expert, who should one take advice from, say on the internet, and individual (unknown) who fits category A and is not well developed or an individual who has experience getting results on themselves and others, but cannot explain the scientific principles in detail?


----------



## Scotty the Body (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Damn, don't I get any respect?  Um, I wrote that!


 Maybe you should change your name to Rodney!  




> . Perhaps the question should be, when getting advise form a non professional, non-expert, who should one take advice from, say on the internet, and individual (unknown) who fits category A and is not well developed or an individual who has experience getting results on themselves and others, but cannot explain the scientific principles in detail?



See this changes things because person A now doesn't have the experience of training people and seeing what works for different people like the professional Person A did. 
So all Person A has now is his studies and books, they probably don't know how to put that knowledge to work, and like Person B it only comes form experience through training others. 

So if I had to chose one or the other, when it comes to pro's I'd go with A who knows how to train different body styles but for non pro's, I think I'd go with Person B, someone who has a similar background to mine. 

As I posted before, its best to listen to both sides, Knowledge is power!!


----------



## Training God (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> 
> 
> TG, you know what?  After all this debating I think the bottom line is that we are in total agreement.
> ...


----------



## Training God (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*** I would put myself in both of these categories. I think that you are describing both sides to an extreme. 

I don't have a big physique but I can apply what I know on others very well and I'm also well versed in physiology.


----------



## Arnold (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Training God *_
> ...and I'm also well versed in phisiology.



then you may want to learn the correct spelling: *physiology*.


----------



## Training God (Nov 1, 2002)

It's called a spelling mistake, I make them quite often.


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 1, 2002)

See and I am on the B side of things.  I have learned through trial and error.  Purely practical.  I have some understanding of the principles, etc. but not to the scientific degree that Chicken Daddy does, for example.

However, I didn't just get lucky.  I have used my current knowledge to help many people.  One friend I trained and taught how to eat won a show.  I have also helped, with success, several members here.


----------



## gopro (Nov 1, 2002)

You know whats interesting...as I keep getting bigger I keep getting better at crossword puzzles and Scrabble. Maybe size DOES equal intelligence...hmmmm!


----------



## Robboe (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> You know whats interesting...as I keep getting bigger I keep getting better at crossword puzzles and Scrabble. Maybe size DOES equal intelligence...hmmmm!



The crosswords in the kiddies comics that come as part of the sunday supplement?

Yeah, i do those all the time.


----------



## gopro (Nov 1, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> 
> 
> The crosswords in the kiddies comics that come as part of the sunday supplement?
> ...



Yup...those


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 3, 2002)

Damn, I still can't do them!  Must get bigger!!!


----------



## Robboe (Nov 3, 2002)

Maybe if you were as HYOOOOOGE!!!!!! as moi you could manage the following with ease:

4 across and 9 down: Oversized rodent that runs around a certain theme park.

Mi_ky
_
_
u
_
e


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 3, 2002)

Barney?  Must lift heavier!

(Maybe if you spelled mouse right I'd get it!)


----------



## Robboe (Nov 3, 2002)

Yeah, just realised i put an extra 'M' in there by accident.

Let's just pretend i've got a stutter, eh?


----------



## gopro (Nov 3, 2002)

Well I'm stumped. Maybe when I hit 265 lbs I can get it


----------



## Robboe (Nov 3, 2002)

Well, the answer is:

~drum roll~

"Milky Rouge"


----------



## lean_n_76er (Nov 3, 2002)

Jeeze, I was gonna say a rat???


----------



## gopro (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> Well, the answer is:
> 
> ~drum roll~
> ...



Who the heck is that?!


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 4, 2002)

i was gonna say MickyMouse. dum wait wifter i is.


----------



## gopro (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Tank316 *_
> i was gonna say MickyMouse. dum wait wifter i is.



Who's Mickey Mouse?


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 4, 2002)

some big ear'd freak that runs a small nonprofit theme park in Florida


----------



## Robboe (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> 
> 
> Who the heck is that?!




He's the cheap, Mexican alternative.


----------



## gopro (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> 
> 
> 
> He's the cheap, Mexican alternative.



Are you saying that Mexican's are cheap?


----------



## Arnold (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> Are you saying that Mexican's are cheap?



cheap labor!


----------



## Duncan (Nov 4, 2002)

This thread explains why my penis is a very dumb instrument.


----------



## Scotty the Body (Nov 4, 2002)




----------



## Robboe (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> 
> 
> Are you saying that Mexican's are cheap?




Depends.

The one's off ebay you can get for a snatch.

www.mexicanslaves.com ain't so cheap though.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 4, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Duncan *_
> This thread explains why my penis is a very dumb instrument.




The low IQ of lil' Duncan is no excuse for him finding his way inside male anal cavities on a regular basis.


----------



## Duncan (Nov 4, 2002)

Lil' Dunca is strictly chickies TCD.  Stop trying to use psychology to talk me into having butt sex with you.


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 4, 2002)

Noticed he used the term "chickies", Chicken Daddy?   Very interesting.....


----------



## Arnold (Nov 4, 2002)




----------



## gopro (Nov 5, 2002)

Is it me? Or has this thread gone a little off topic...


----------



## Robboe (Nov 5, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Duncan *_
> Lil' Dunca is strictly chickies TCD.  Stop trying to use psychology to talk me into having butt sex with you.




So lil' Duncan prefers animals?

Dude you're just sick  

By the way, as much as this hurts you, i still have my ticket to Bellmore to book. I can smell the coconut already!


----------



## Robboe (Nov 5, 2002)

Gopro's cocoa nuts.


----------



## gopro (Nov 5, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bellmore and I await your arrival TCD!


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 5, 2002)

Bellmore?  Whats Bellmore?  Other than a town in NY....


----------



## Arnold (Nov 5, 2002)




----------



## Robboe (Nov 6, 2002)




----------



## gopro (Nov 6, 2002)

Moiewhfwehgiwe vngweanfhw0efjwqpeovj v0ewjfwefjwefj....that makes as much sense as this thread now.


----------



## Snake_Eyes (Nov 6, 2002)

We're all cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.


----------



## gopro (Nov 7, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Snake_Eyes *_
> We're all cookoo for Cocoa Puffs.



I actually LOVE Cocoa Puffs!


----------



## Scotty the Body (Nov 7, 2002)

I've never tried Cocoa puffs


----------



## Preacher (Nov 7, 2002)

What were you guys on again ? 

<scratches some items of list>


----------



## gopro (Nov 7, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Scotty the Body *_
> I've never tried Cocoa puffs



You should...great carb up food after a workout


----------



## ZECH (Nov 7, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> 
> 
> You should...great carb up food after a workout


Will they give you size and knowledge also??


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 8, 2002)

Just size, from which the knowledge will inevitably flow.


----------



## gopro (Nov 8, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Twin Peak *_
> Just size, from which the knowledge will inevitably flow.



EXACTLY...


----------



## Tank316 (Nov 8, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by gopro *_
> 
> 
> EXACTLY...


----------



## Robboe (Nov 8, 2002)

Yeah, cause knowledge is just pissing from the pores of pros, eh?


----------



## gopro (Nov 8, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by The_Chicken_Daddy *_
> Yeah, cause knowledge is just pissing from the pores of pros, eh?



Drug users don't count...with some notable exceptions, drug users DON"T need to do things intelligently to make progress. Its the naturals that need to truly use their mind!


----------



## gopro (Nov 8, 2002)

> _*Originally posted by Tank316 *_



From what I've seen of you, you're a freakin genius!!!!!!!!!!


----------

