GripGambler

it had all the makings of an "upset". He has a ton of experience (hidden + amount of fights), height, same wrestling, has always been a ground fighter so most likely his secondaries are on par or better than yours given how much longer he has had to train and his lack of better primaries, probably better or similar physicals because of the same reason, your primaries could be VERY close to each other, definitely close enough for sliders alone to make the difference, not to mention the aggressive/finish sliders that you took against someone with these advantages. Oh, and the random number generator.

If you have to ask, don't post it.

So, the polite thing to do would be to make your own thread about this instead of whoring Moguls thread. If it continues here I'll split it myself

Woot!

So they whipped out their expandable batons and socks filled with coins to defend themselves? Lets see, which seems more premeditated as a weapon... a sock filled with coins walking around in a group, or one guy with a pocket knife.... Yea, I still don't see the argument =\

So they got in a group around him, weren't going to do anything, but once they found out he had a weapon they decided it was time to pounce? Nothing about that seems more realistic to me.

As he puts away a recent UFC title contender who was a great pick to exploit the weakness you quote. If you are going to point out a weakness it should be wrestling. Diaz has proven himself against plenty of great standup fighters.

It isn't unrealistic. This rule is common across almost every browser mmo on the internet. The unrealistic situation would be for an admin to have to thoroughly investigate and decide whether or not to trust people in every single situation.

It's just a mixture of other supps, like Beta alanine, GABA, AKG's, and caffeine

fair enough... just tell him to clean out the sand or find a carebear gym imo.

Dunno about the UK, but in the US that is assault with a deadly weapon... so I'm going to say it was pretty dumb. Probably best to just walk away and learn not to lend money to people you aren't close to, or at all... then file a police report on the mirrors.

Toney / Couture?

Oh it's on like donkey kong

After years of on the side home IT work and using all the popular suites such as avg, avast, avira, kaspersky, nod32, etc... microsofts new security essentials suite is what I use on all personal and customer PCs. Not only have I seen it consistently outperform the others, the resource footprint is much smaller and the updates are a lot less hassle and annoyance as they are updated through windows update. I recommend everyone using free AV try it. If you do ever get infected, because an AV by design can't catch everything, kaspersky makes great specialty tools such as TDSSkiller for rootkit removal and their free recovery disk which boots outside of windows to remove the nastier ones. On a side note, the best AV is the smart and informed internet user.

Probably the title.. very few people actually bodybuild which refers to the competitive activity. Judging by the post though you just mean casual muscle gaining, so I would change the title for more interest.

Ouch.

I like how you keep taking the most extreme viewpoint you can think of and labeling me with it. How would you feel if I called your views communist because you feel that everyone is equal and we should spread the wealth? It would be a baseless gross exaggeration of the statements you have made, right? I have never once argued what a person deserves to have, or how I feel towards homeless people, or that I believe some are superior to others. My statements have been how I feel that tax dollars should be spent by the government on the issues in this thread, and the type of balance that those dollars should be spent towards. I am merely stating that there are cons to huge biases of charitable spending, just as there are cons to the same spending in science and that because of this, we should create a proper balance of spending within the community. That said, I don't feel that the government of a country should play robin hood directly. I'm all for increasing spending for education community upkeep, and other infrastructure that will benefit everyone, even the lowest of the classes, but I don't feel that money should be taken from one citizen and given directly to another via cash, food, or other property. In my opinion, it should be up to the citizens to choose for themselves if, how much, and where to give to charity, and up to the people who have the strongest charitable feelings to lead their respective movements towards gaining funds to distribute. Also, don't be so quick to count out the government on how much they contribute to charity, nor big business regardless of their reasonings. Many businesses and rich people donate large amounts of money to charitable organizations for PR and tax deduction reasons. Not only is the business giving this money, but tax deductions due to this are lost opportunity cost by the government, so the program allowing tax deductions based on charitable donations is equivalent to the government donating every bit of charitable tax deduction money to charity. The best statistic that I could find on this is a 2008 IRS statistic showing that the combined deduction for individuals (not counting businesses at all) that year was $172.9 billion. This means that the government basically paid (opportunity cost, based on a 30% tax rate) $51.87 billion to charity in individual persons charitable deductions alone.

End hunger and homelessness? Won't happen, the best you can do is work to lower the percentages. The more you put into it, the more the system will be abused. It won't matter if you divert every bit of government funding to it. This is why you have to find a balance. Tax money given directly to people for food and housing isn't the proper way to go about it either, it would have to be in the form of infrastructure changes. It just isn't the governments place to tax for charity IMO.

Actually, doomsday is a fact. The "when" is the unknown. It may very well be after we destroy ourselves, but the Earth will eventually cease to provide for life.

Sorry, I have to nitpick here. "It might be in the future" is not an assumption. An assumption would be "It will be in the future". The use of the word "might" in this context keeps it from being an assumption.

Since I have stated multiple times that it is a measure to preserve human life post apocalyptic scenario, I fail to see how you have drawn any of these conclusions about my opinions. Strange, I see it the opposite. Creationists claim to know the facts, which is your standpoint... claiming to know the facts. I am merely stating that we don't know and therefore shouldn't stop the search. This mentality is in direct contradiction to creationist mentality. All of your assumptions even in this post are entirely baseless with no possible way to calculate the certainty of. "there's a good chance we'll never find how".. just a completely merit-less statement. My assumptions aren't contrary to these statements, rather my assumption is that we will never find out if we don't try, therefore nothing is necessary to justify.

looks great except for rampage

Far too many assumptions are being made here. Your first mistake is the assumption of it happening based on the use of a current theory. You are also assuming that by provisions I meant supply caches, when I was actually referring to planning and preparations. The lack of a habitable planet is also based on the assumption of current technology and theory. Just because we can't walk on another planet and breath its air doesn't mean in the future we won't have the technology to adapt to it by some form of artificial assistance or etc..

You keep concentrating on huge numbers of people... You aren't getting it. We aren't talking about continuing current civilization in space, we are talking about preserving the human race. This can be achieved by as little as a few hundred people with proper provisions. Just because it can't be done with current technology doesn't mean that we shouldn't be trying to get there, even if it does take 1000 years. Who knows how many useful inventions will come out of the process as well. Some of the greatest inventions have been accidents while trying to do something else. Like post-it notes (and lesser things like the light bulb). I like how you link wanting to advance technology with not valuing human life. Even if every bit of war/defense/research money was devoted to feeding people, we would never be able to feed everyone. Nor would we be fixing the problem or creating a long term solution, but rather creating a bigger problem where people begin to rely on the government for food (more so than do already). I guess none of us value human life because we use the internet, have non-necessities, and free time when we could devote all of our extra income to food for the homeless and spend all of our extra time building shelters and handing out food. Extremes don't work, it takes a balance. If all governments of the past ran by the theory of feeding before advancing, we would still be living in huts surrounding a castle.