T Nation

What You've Learned From Experience

[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
Nominal, I can’t even begin to tell you how much of a jerk you come off as while saying stuff like this.
While you might dismiss possibly Bodybuilding’s greatest competitor for not being an ‘‘intellectual giant’’, you might want to not that BB.com isn’t noted for it’s abundance ‘‘intellectual giants’’ either[/quote]

Why am I a jerk for saying that? I believe that Ronnie Coleman has a good understanding of bodybuilding principles, but he chooses to express himself in a non-intellectual manner. Comments such as “Light weight, baby!” generally appeal to people with low IQ’s. Sorry, but it’s the truth. People aren’t created equal. Not in the realm of muscle hypertrophy, or brain hypertrophy, for that matter.

BB.com has plenty of people who are big, accomplished, and intelligent. It is by no means a “dumb website”, contrary to the claims you have read. There is a “bandwagon” mentality over there, but it’s no worse than the one here.

Whenever you have a forum with over 13,000 registered users and no moderation required to post, you’re going to get your fair share of stupidity. That is no trouble at all though, because the morons congregate on certain parts of the site and avoid others.

BB.com has actual, competitive athletes who post there as well as the most attractive fitness girls on the net. It also has lots of young people who are just getting into the hobby. Nothing wrong with that.

If you want serious discussion, all you have to do is stick to the serious parts of the site.

[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
It’s not a particularly genius play on the original either.[/quote]

If you say so. I think it’s about as witty as one can get in a discussion about lifting weights. But naturally, you’d have to agree with the point of view it endorses in order to share that opinion.

[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
I dunno where you’re form, but 99% of people I know who train with weights don’t actually know anything about training with weights.
This, coupled with ‘‘mirror muscle’’ syndrome, and an obsession with abs is far more likely to be the culprit of people, either 13 year olds or 30 year olds, and everyone in between failing to put on any bit of mass.
My local Rugby club ran an academy last summer for guys making the transition form the juvenile teams, The first thing on the agenda was putting them into the gym to get bigger, with some dietry guidelines. As I looked through the weight programmes made out for them, I wasn’t exactly amazed to see the amount of heavy lifting/low reps(albiet, high volume) workouts. And you can take my word that each of these guys did put on quite a bit of mass.[/quote]

Nothing you post here is going to refute the mountains of anecdotal evidence I have witnessed to attest to the fact that normal people think “lifting heavy is the best way to get big”.

If you want, we can get into a detailed discussion on how “normal people” train, and compare our subjective experiences. I agree that most people don’t know what they’re doing, but my definition of “improper training” is entirely different from yours.

What’s wrong with training mirror muscles only? That’s not a training error, per se, but rather a difference in aesthetic preferences. If someone only cares about biceps and chest, then there’s no good reason for that person to do squats. I really hope you don’t buy that bullshit about “squats making your arms grow”. It is entirely possible to make your body grow “out of proportion,” and numerous “dance club” physiques attest to this. You may not like it and I don’t either, but it doesn’t change the fact of the matter.

[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
I know how frustrating it is to be skinny with a fast metabolism, but I’ve heard it used as an excuse by too many guys to actually consider it a valid point(because it simply isn’t)[/quote]

I’m fully aware of the fact that people make all sorts of excuses. Skinny as well as fat. I work in this industry, after all, so I have heard most of them. In my case, it isn’t an excuse, it’s a reality. I deal with it, and you should too, instead of trying to be my savior.

[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
The fact that you know you’re body is good, but that really is a load of crap. I saw an almost anorexic little 17 year old build almost 70lbs of muscle onto his frame in a year and a halfs hard work. And he didn’t have good genes for it, his whole family was very skinny, he was just dedicated. And guess what, he looked a hell of a lot better with a shit load of muscle and some fat than he did with his ‘leet abz’.[/quote]

What I tell you about my body isn’t a load of crap. So what that you saw some skinny guy put on 70 lbs. of muscle? I know those stories. I’ve read them, I’ve seen the photo’s, and I’ve been very impressed as well. That doesn’t mean that everyone’s physiology is capable of making such a transformation. Granted, I’ve come a long way since I started and I have plenty to be proud of.

Please don’t use the “leet abs” bullshit with me. I don’t give a shit about my abs. Look again at my pics and you’ll see that I don’t even have a visible sixpack. That’s because I don’t train them.

I am not an aspiring Abercrombie model.

I have posted numerous times that I train for size and my ideal look is that of a symmetrical pro bodybuilder, like Dennis Wolf. I would kill to look like that.

You’re trotting out the old line that you read to every kid who comes on here. You get the impression that everyone who looks the way I do is skinny by choice, but nothing could be further from the truth. I told you I eat a lot. I told you I’ve been bulking for the past 3 years. I told you I consume lots of anabolic foods and provided a small list of them. Do you want me to post my entire diet? What else do you want? A blood and urine sample?

What I want is for you to get the fuck off my back and stop assuming you know all about me and you have “just the fix” for my inherent “problems”.

You don’t know shit about me and your attempts to “fix me” are obnoxious. It should be obvious from my posts that I a very firm grasp of bodybuilding principles and you are not telling me anything I haven’t heard countless times before when you quote the same old, tired cliches.

[quote]Jereth127 wrote:
The enitre purpose of this site is muscle building-’‘Muscle Building Elitests’’ and ‘‘The Intelligent and relentless pursuit of muscle’’ are slogans that flash on my screen every day.
Therefore, it probably wouldn’t be a great idea to go onto an internet site such as this and tell people that your skinny physique is good.
You asked for it really.[/quote]

Once again, you are just making noise and not contributing any useful information.

If you saw my posts earlier in this thread and if you were familiar with my post history, you would know that I have traditionally resisted putting my pics up on this board, precisely because I was aware of the inevitable flaming that I would receive.

Don’t give me this “you asked for it” bullshit. No SHIT I asked for it, dumbass. This is T-Nation, home of the “construction worker with big forearms” look. For a decade this site has been completely biased towards SIZE and STRENGTH and I’d have to be a huge imbecile not to be keenly aware of that.

It’s hilarious. I can’t win.

I won’t put up my pics? Then I’m a pussy and no one should listen to me.

I put up my pics? Now I’m “small” and no one should listen to me.

I defend myself against criticism? Now it’s “my fault” and I shouldn’t have put them up in the first place.

Catch-22.

You are being a jackass.
If you just read what I wrote earlier in the thread, you would see that you are not contributing anything new to this discussion.

The same shit happens to me every time there is a long thread.

People hop into the debate after it’s been going on for days and they start raising bullshit that was already been dealt with 6 pages ago, because they’re too lazy to read the thread frm the beginning.

And my response is always the same: Cut the crap now or I’m going to have to go back through my post history and start quoting myself, word-for-word.

I really have to treat most of you like children.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Tumbles wrote:
It was kind of an “I’m a retard” moment, but one of the most important things for me was realizing I should not be focusing on moving the most weight, but moving the most weight in a manner that stimulates the target muscle (or, allows for maximal poundage, etc [insert non-bb goals here]).

Far from being a retard moment, that’s a moment most never have and goes along with my first post in this thread. The fact that iron is moving does not necessarily mean the muscles you’re trying hit are getting optimal work. Hence you see guys with large front delts and under developed pecs for instance.[/quote]

Most people never accomplish anything worthwhile either though. I guess I felt it was ridiculously simple and I should have figured it out within the first month of training.

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Also I’m wondering why you haven’t posted your stats or routine? If nothing else could you at least PM your current routine to me? I’m interested in the set up. [/quote]

For Christ’s sake man, read the damn thread.

My routine has been posted and I already answered the question of putting up my stats.

I think I need a sticky thread on this forum if I am going to have to repeat myself every 5 minutes like some special education teacher.

I really don’t think any of you can fathom what it’s like to be attacked by a group of “people” who carelessly disregard your post history and force you to repeatedly defend yourself on the same points.

My behavior and posting style is entirely a reflection of the bullshit that I have to put up with on here. You should walk in my shoes for a few days, if only you could.

Yes, I know I’ve offended you by implying that you’re a bunch of morons. But faced with this type of behavior, which other label would be appropriate? The fact is, you’ve earned the title. If you don’t like it, then change your behavior.

You all seem to think that I should just lay down my arms and admit defeat, but that is simply never going to happen. Why not? For the exact same fucking reason that nobody else on this forum - or any other forum - has ever said, “Hey guys I’ve been writing essays on this subject for 5 years but everything I’ve ever written has been wrong and it turns out I know nothing. I will shut up and listen to my betters from now on.” Getting such an admission from me must be one hell of a masturbation fantasy for some of you pricks.

I can’t admit defeat because I don’t think I’m wrong, you see. You can’t “convince” someone to dispense with a point of view through coercion, only reason. And I have yet to hear any good reasons from my opponents.

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
You act like the guys way bigger than you on here are wrong. They’re the ones doing what the pro’s are doing. Go look at Johnnie Jacksons routine, Ronnie colemans, or even just most other body builders and they’re not doing crazy stuff and neither are the big guys here. No one here is even saying isolation exercises or machines are bad. No one is saying training to failure is necessarily always bad. [/quote]

Coleman and JOJ are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of BB’ers, past and present, would endorse what I’ve said. Go look at what Bob Chic writes. He is one of the more vocal former IFFB pro’s. This is kid’s stuff. I’m not going to go into it because you’re flat out wrong. You can’t sit here and try to convince me that “all the big guys” train heavy with compounds. It simply isn’t true. Numerous authors, even those who advocate training this way, have admit that it isn’t true. Try Poliquin, CT, Boyle, et. al

The whole “joke” about bodybuilders is that they are supposedly “weak” for their size, right? Well that obviously implies that the largest guys AREN’T moving the most weight or training with all compound movements.

Get outta’ here
Find something better to do.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
Also I’m wondering why you haven’t posted your stats or routine? If nothing else could you at least PM your current routine to me? I’m interested in the set up.

For Christ’s sake man, read the damn thread.

My routine has been posted and I already answered the question of putting up my stats.

I think I need a sticky thread on this forum if I am going to have to repeat myself every 5 minutes like some special education teacher.

I really don’t think any of you can fathom what it’s like to be attacked by a group of “people” who carelessly disregard your post history and force you to repeatedly defend yourself on the same points.

My behavior and posting style is entirely a reflection of the bullshit that I have to put up with on here. You should walk in my shoes for a few days, if only you could.

Yes, I know I’ve offended you by implying that you’re a bunch of morons. But faced with this type of behavior, which other label would be appropriate? The fact is, you’ve earned the title. If you don’t like it, then change your behavior.

You all seem to think that I should just lay down my arms and admit defeat, but that is simply never going to happen. Why not? For the exact same fucking reason that nobody else on this forum - or any other forum - has ever said, “Hey guys I’ve been writing essays on this subject for 5 years but everything I’ve ever written has been wrong and it turns out I know nothing. I will shut up and listen to my betters from now on.” Getting such an admission from me must be one hell of a masturbation fantasy for some of you pricks.

I can’t admit defeat because I don’t think I’m wrong, you see. You can’t “convince” someone to dispense with a point of view through coercion, only reason. And I have yet to hear any good reasons from my opponents.

pumped340 wrote:
You act like the guys way bigger than you on here are wrong. They’re the ones doing what the pro’s are doing. Go look at Johnnie Jacksons routine, Ronnie colemans, or even just most other body builders and they’re not doing crazy stuff and neither are the big guys here. No one here is even saying isolation exercises or machines are bad. No one is saying training to failure is necessarily always bad.

Coleman and JOJ are exceptions to the rule. The vast majority of BB’ers, past and present, would endorse what I’ve said. Go look at what Bob Chic writes. He is one of the more vocal former IFFB pro’s. This is kid’s stuff. I’m not going to go into it because you’re flat out wrong. You can’t sit here and try to convince me that “all the big guys” train heavy with compounds. It simply isn’t true. Numerous authors, even those who advocate training this way, have admit that it isn’t true. Try Poliquin, CT, Boyle, et. al

The whole “joke” about bodybuilders is that they are supposedly “weak” for their size, right? Well that obviously implies that the largest guys AREN’T moving the most weight or training with all compound movements.

Get outta’ here
Find something better to do.[/quote]

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

I’m not in the habit of interrupting a debate half way through and raising points which have already been delat with, I read the entire thread before I posted genius and was also a member of BB.com before finding T-Nation…

However, nor am I in the habit of bickering pointlessly with trolls, I feel I let myself down when I entered this debate.

Lets just agree to disagree.

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
Nominal, don’t you think you should incorporate heavy lifting in your workout along with higher rep isolation moves?[/quote]

That depends on what you mean by “heavy”. I would argue that I already lift this way to some extent.

For instance, on the seated tricep pressdown machine (which I do standing up) I’ll often start with almost the entire stack and work my way down. I think that triceps respond very well to heavy pressing in a restricted ROM. This is my definition of “heavy”. The lowest I go, rep-wise, is probably 6-8. The highest could be over 25 on some exercises, particularly for legs.

Every time I lift “heavy” though, I have to finish off the exercise by dropping down to a lighter weight with higher reps. That is because I simply wouldn’t feel as if I was stimulating the muscle fully if I only did the heavy sets.

When I go heavy, my joints and connective tissues let me know they’re there. The muscles? Not so much. I get the greatest mind-muscle connection by far on your “higher rep isolation movements”, and that is why I do them.

However, none of the weights I use feel particularly “light”, even the very small ones that I use for deltoid movements. The whole thing, as Frank Zane once said, is to “Make the weight you’re using feel heavy, rather than always using a heavy weight.” That’s how I train.

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
You quote CT etc. on what they say the benefits for lighter weights/higher reps are. Yet you don’t mention that they also advocate lifting heavy in addition.[/quote]

I know I don’t. Because I think it’s well known information. When I’m reading articles, I save the parts that I find interesting and disregard the things I disagree with (which isn’t to say that I’ll never examine them further).

If a well-known powerlifter writes that people should to train heavy, where is the information? There is none. Unless you’re an aspiring powerlifter, I suppose - which I’m not.

But if that same powerlifter claims the pump is really important for hypertrophy, that IS news. Because that is not the type of thing one would expect a powerlifter to say. Therefore, the second comment will get saved, and the first one won’t.

[quote]Goodfellow wrote:
It makes you stronger, allowing you to use more weight in your isolation movements (resulting in more hypertrophy), as well as giving a hard dense look.

It seems to me that excluding anything can only be viewed as foolish.[/quote]

Really? Even excluding 1-legged kettlebell swings on a Bosu Ball while chanting Zen Mantra’s? lol

I view performance training and aesthetics training as two seperate and entirely opposite worlds.

I could compile a huge list of “Athlete vs. Bodybuilder” comparisons to illustrate how the two groups are nearly polar opposites, but I’ve written enough already. Besides, people who understand lifting should be well aware of this.

Athletes can learn practically nothing from bodybuilders and vice versa.

An “athlete” is anyone who prioritizes performance in his training. A bodybuilder is anyone who prioritizes aesthetics. They don’t have to be competitive, they don’t have to be good, they don’t have to want to be good (e.g. they can be housewives), just so long as those basic conditions are met. Everyone I meet and train gets lumped into one of the two groups. And for further elaboration on that, allow me to direct you to the infamous thread:

[quote]sebbie wrote:
BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW[/quote]

What an idiot. I picture you drooling over the keyboard.

And you guys bash BB.com? Hilarious.

Me find something better to do? I’m not the one spending my time answering every single post with my personal memoirs.

I didn’t see any specific routine you do, just concepts that you follow which isn’t the same thing.

and yes I do know what it’s like to get bashed by many people at once.

What I’ve learned from experience is it takes two people to ruin a perfectly good thread. One person can’t do it alone…

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Me find something better to do? I’m not the one spending my time answering every single post with my personal memoirs.

I didn’t see any specific routine you do, just concepts that you follow which isn’t the same thing.

and yes I do know what it’s like to get bashed by many people at once.[/quote]

[quote]pumped340 wrote:
Me find something better to do? I’m not the one spending my time answering every single post with my personal memoirs.

I didn’t see any specific routine you do, just concepts that you follow which isn’t the same thing.

and yes I do know what it’s like to get bashed by many people at once.[/quote]

Honestly he’s not even worth the effort/time. I realize this more and more as I dig deeper into his pysch. I don’t think I have ever stated this about anyone on the web, but the guy is dillusional.

[quote]Nominal Prospect
What do you think is the single most important factor for “getting big”?

Is it having the right genetics? Nope.
Is it eating tons of food? Nope.
Is it training heavy and often? Nope.
Using gear? Nope.
Is it being consistent with all of the above? No.

What, then? What could it possibly be:

Easy. It’s your age, dummy.[/quote]

[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
pumped340 wrote:
Me find something better to do? I’m not the one spending my time answering every single post with my personal memoirs.

I didn’t see any specific routine you do, just concepts that you follow which isn’t the same thing.

and yes I do know what it’s like to get bashed by many people at once.

Honestly he’s not even worth the effort/time. I realize this more and more as I dig deeper into his pysch. I don’t think I have ever stated this about anyone on the web, but the guy is dillusional.
Nominal Prospect
What do you think is the single most important factor for “getting big”?

Is it having the right genetics? Nope.
Is it eating tons of food? Nope.
Is it training heavy and often? Nope.
Using gear? Nope.
Is it being consistent with all of the above? No.

What, then? What could it possibly be:

Easy. It’s your age, dummy.[/quote]

Runs to find the Stupidist quotes about training thread

Well, I’m glad to see that someone has finally read through my post history before responding to me.

However, I’m sorry to say that if you found the quote stupid, it could only be due to a deficiency in your thinking.

For what I said was statistically correct.

It’s no different from saying that people grow taller from childhood to adulthood, or that they tend to get sicker as they age.

So now I’ll take the opportunity to reaffirm my statement.

People do tend to get larger as they age, as a fact of life. If you went and asked 100 adults from the street, I’m sure that every one of them would agree with this. For it is common knowledge.

Aging is the most “reliable” means of getting large. No other method accomplishes the same result as consistently and effectively.

Witness:
Anabolics don’t work for everyone.
Bulking doesn’t work for everyone.
Good genetics aren’t possessed by everyone.
Nor is the will to train hard and eat lots of food.

But everyone ages, don’t they? And with age, comes the scale weight, for most people. Surely less than one person in a million weighs less at the time of their death than at the onset of adulthood.

The above is just a thought experiment. Something which most of you are likely to be unfamiliar with. It’s used to illustrate the inherent stupidity of forcing young and lean people to eat massive amounts of food in order to put on size. Most people in western countries spend the majority of their lives overweight, so what’s the point of yelling at kids who want to enjoy their few years of leanness?

I’m the only person here who has his eyes open. The rest of you are just hopeless.

[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
Honestly he’s not even worth the effort/time. I realize this more and more as I dig deeper into his pysch. I don’t think I have ever stated this about anyone on the web, but the guy is dillusional.[/quote]

Good. Then I’ve affected you in a way that no one else has. That’s my goal. It confirms what I already know about myself and others.

I think you have little to no conception of the tremendous diversity of the world in which you live. You are so close minded and shallow.

In a world as diverse as this, I don’t even understand how the phrase, “You are delusional” could possibly hold any validity. One of the greatest wonders is finding parallel universes existing side-by-side. Close in proximity, yet isolated from one another. This can apply to anything. I can observe this because I’m a very open minded individual. But at the same time, I have the intellectual fortitude to draw meaningful conclusions about the world, and to reject the nonsense that I see. It’s a rare combination of talents.

People who possess such a capacity for observation are usually pushovers. The most jarring and incongruent aspect of my psyche - as I imagine it would appear to an outsider - is the fact that I’m anything but.

Another bit of wisdom.

From Scott Abel, on the front page.

[quote]"What seemed at the time to be a curse actually led me to an insight: strength is only mildly related to hypertrophy and muscular development. The ability to build strength has a lot to do with tendon length and thickness - genetic traits that a person can do little about. Once I let go of the idea that “getting stronger” was synonymous with “getting bigger,” my physique took off, and I achieved a successful career as a bodybuilder and bodybuilding coach.

There’s no equation that says increased load equals increased muscle development. Focusing too much on it results in diminished returns, limiting your ability to enhance your physique. That’s why any good bodybuilder who’s been at it more than eight or nine years lifts less weight than he used to, not more."
[/quote]

You know, I think that anyone who doesn’t get it by now is hopeless. At some point, you’d expect an intelligent person to snap out their trance.

I’m waiting, gentlemen…

Nominal, all you have to do to silence everyone is the following:

Find a twig boy who has a 500lb bench, 700lb squat, 800lb deadlift. I will help you on this. Oleksandr Kutcher was the smallest guy I can find, he weighs 165lbs, although he’s not really a twig boy.

http://www.pic-upload.de/01.01.09/2ea8ut.jpg

Then

Find a beast who mainly does isolation moves on machines, with little to no compound movements. I have not found one yet, sorry.

Then

Post photos, diet, workout regimes of the two specimens. Then use the data to prove your hypothesis.

A very intellegent and scientific approach that I’m sure you would appreciate.

Unforunately words are just words. Citing articles proves nothing.

Alright, ball is in your court. GO!

-Getting correct form is more satisfying than getting more weight/reps.

Just something that comes to mind.

I’m sure this has been said in a different wording on this thread but, I think keeping an open mind is very important when it comes to bodybuilding. People respond to different stimuli (physically or mentally) so you never know, you may stumble on to something golden by trying something new from time to time!

[quote]Invictica wrote:
Nominal, all you have to do to silence everyone is the following:

Find a twig boy who has a 500lb bench, 700lb squat, 800lb deadlift. I will help you on this. Oleksandr Kutcher was the smallest guy I can find, he weighs 165lbs, although he’s not really a twig boy.

http://www.pic-upload.de/01.01.09/2ea8ut.jpg

Then

Post photos, diet, workout regimes of the two specimens. Then use the data to prove your hypothesis.

A very intellegent and scientific approach that I’m sure you would appreciate.

Unforunately words are just words. Citing articles proves nothing.

Alright, ball is in your court. GO![/quote]

A twig boy? I’ll give you a fat blob instead. Both are equally unimpressive.

“You need to be big in order to throw around heavy shit”

[quote]Invictica wrote:
Find a beast who mainly does isolation moves on machines, with little to no compound movements. I have not found one yet, sorry.[/quote]

What? Dorian Yates, Toney Freeman, Dexter Jackson, Bob Cicherillo, Jay Cutler. Most any IFFB pro besides Coleman and JOJ.

This is a silly game. I already did the work earlier in the thread. I’m not going to repeat myself.

The scientific explanation for why compounds aren’t effective for hypertrophy is as follows:

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
Since different muscle groups have different performance thresholds and achieve overload at different parts of the strength-tension curve, it is nearly impossible to use multi-joint movements to achieve muscular overload, which is the necessary precursor of muscular hypertrophy.

The inherent flaw of all compound exercises from a bodybuilding perspective is that you are limited by the “weakest link” in the chain of muscles that is used to perform the exercise. In this way, you simply cannot achieve overload for the other muscle groups. At best, you will be training your “weakest link” and nothing more. Over time, this develops huge “physique holes” and imbalances which have to be corrected with proper training: i.e. isolation movements. If you run a search across strength forums you will find plenty of threads about this issue. You will also find other people who have tried doing compounds and not gotten anything in the way of mass gains. Your case is not particularly unique, which should be reassuring, since you haven’t been doing anything wrong, outside of choosing the wrong exercises.

The types of people who can gain appreciable amounts of muscle from compounds were “built” for doing them in the first place. You can usually tell this just by looking at them.[/quote]

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
-The maximum degree of overload that a given muscle can be subjected to is equivalent to the maximum amount of work that muscle can perform in isolation. If you can curl 50 lbs. as a max, then your biceps are only strong enough to produce 50 lbs. of elbow flexion, period. Doing a compound exercise with more weight will not change this.

In the above example, doing 100 lb. rows will not be any more effective in eliciting hypertrophy of the biceps than the 50 lb. curls. The extra weight being used on the second exercise is entirely a function of the other muscle groups involved with the exercise. To claim otherwise is a clear violation of physics which is nevertheless made by dozens of college-educated strength coach who write about the topic.

-The more muscles that are called upon to move a weight, the less work each of them will have to do individually. 3rd grade math skills refute the dogma of “heavier is better”. .[/quote]

More information:

No one has attempted to refute what I wrote above, and no one is going to. Pigs will fly before that happens. It is the most ironclad proof I’ve ever written. I’m really looking forward to your attempt at disproving physics.

I’m just going to sit back and relax now. As you can see, I have already written pages of material on this topic. I don’t need to write any more.