Y2HH

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Apr 22, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) And being destroyed by a natural disaster? Really? Is that how we're going to disprove living somewhere? Anything can happen anywhere at anytime. We had the Great Chicago Fire. Midwest as a whole has tornados. We've also had flooding. The south/southeast has hurricanes, the east also gets hurricanes, and a snowstorm can wipe you out days at a time. In terms of big cities, LA is the winner. While yes, you have a point, you are also deliberately ignoring the law of averages.

Just thought I'd drop in and be perfectly vulgar...f*** YES!@#$!@! :headbang

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 21, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) This looks like a nice little routine. Definitely going to try this. First of all, this is all in-home and I don't have any barbells, so that's a no-go, but I'll definitely try the Arnold press. I toss in upright rows frequently, but I never really feel like I'm targeting my shoulder, moreso my traps. Ditto with the shrugs. That's all traps. Shrugs are all traps, it's an isolation exercise, but upright rows are a more of a compound movement that do hit the traps, but they also hit the delts, too. Being that this is all in home, and that you do not have barbell, the best you'll be able to do is the Arnold press and/or overhead presses...if you have heavier dumbbells, try to slowly work your way up to using them.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Apr 21, 2012 -> 09:56 AM) are you kidding me? LA is terrible. Miami even worse. and Y2HH you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure your opinions are based off tv shows. My comment about trying a new lure out of my tackle box fell on deaf ears. I've actually never been to NY.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Apr 21, 2012 -> 12:32 AM) All with dumbells: lateral raises, front raises, overhead press. I know you're just kidding, but I've had to work my ass off just to get where I am now. Lost 25 pounds since I started in January, now working on building the muscles. You have to add more compound movements to your shoulder workout. Compound movements involve multiple muscles and are primarily used for "mass" gain as by definition these types of movements allow you to lift much heavier weight. Isolation movements, which are things like lateral raises, are better for definition and tone, but that's not to say they wont add size, too. Compound movements are simply better to add size, whereas isolation movements are better for "shred" or definition. A few things you can try: 1) Overhead presses with a BARbell, or a hammer strength machine, NOT dumbells, and not behind your head, either. Performing overhead press movements while bringing the bar behind your head/neck adds nothing to the workout and increases stress on the shoulder tendons. I commonly see people do this in the gym, and it's incorrect. 2) If a barbell is impossible for you, try "Arnold" presses with the dumbbells, while not quite as good as the barbell for mass gain, they are better than standard overhead presses. This is an "Arnold" press: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Rtakl0frk 3) Add upright rows to your routine. This is an "upright" row: 4) Shoulder shrugs. When performing shrugs, never "rotate" through the motion. It's a direct up/down movement. If you rotate your shoulder when performing shrugs, all you are doing is unnecessarily stressing the rotator-cuff. Performing this exercise is harder than people think as people often "cheat" through the motion. When you shrug your shoulder holding dumbbells, hold the top of the shrug for a few seconds, you should feel it in the traps, then, slowly go down to "rest"...rinse/repeat. Finally, some of this depends on your body type. Some people are NOT predisposed to having a natural \/ shape to their body, highlighted by bulky shoulders...if you are not one of those people, it can often be harder to "bulk up" your shoulders, but that's not to say it cannot be done...it just cannot be done very easily without slamming compound shoulder movements.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 12:18 PM) Still looking for a staff auditor here in Seattle. Anyone want to work for me? What if the person you hire audits you and determines you've been found wanting? I'll take THAT job!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 20, 2012 -> 02:57 PM) Sunday morning news shows: overwhelmingly Republican white males. Half the women appearances were Bachmann and half the minority appearances were Cain. Talk about having to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to get the results they were looking for. Sunday Morning News? Lowest rated, least watched time slot available is dominated by white republicans nobody is awake to watch. Talk about reaching. Find a more significant story. EDIT: I'd actually be interested in seeing a similar study based on prime time slots, versus a time slot where the networks target audience is probably old retired white people, as they're the only ones that watch these shows on Sunday mornings while the rest of us sleep or do something more constructive with one of our two days off. Seem more like they're just catering to their audience versus stacking the deck for republicans on purpose.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 09:23 PM) I should add that I actually like this subforum, but being active and posting a lot isn't a license to break the rules. 1. I will not insult other posters, directly or indirectly 3. I will not bait people or push them over the line (a.k.a. pushing their buttons) 4. I will not post statements for the purpose of angering others 5. I will not prod posters repeatedly on a subject or chase them across topics to make a point I could find numerous examples of these rules being broken again and again by the same people - people with 10K or more posts who differ politically and go around and around in almost every thread in the filibuster. It may be ok between the people involved, buts it's tiring when it's the same two people making the same handful of points repeatedly. You name the topic, and I pretty much know how the most active people in this subforum will feel before I even enter the thread. Just my two cents. You just described every discussion to ever take place on the planet. And that's not the point of a discussion. Sure, when it comes to my friends, family, and certain individuals on this forum, I can probably guess their stance on a specific issue before I ask, HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant a discussion. The only way to have a discussion and NOT know what stance people might take is to find new people for every discussion every day of your life. Good luck with that. Some people feel as if a discussion, even a heated discussion is automatically an argument...and at times they can devolve into that, but mostly, it's still a discussion with point/counterpoint/counter-counterpoint, debates on a specific issue, etc. Yes, people defending their opinions can get passionate...and I expect it...if you aren't passionate about how you feel about something, why bother feeling that way at all? What I've found is that while people tend to not concede points during a discussion, after they've had time to think about the counter points to their view, they CAN and often do accept them, even if silently. I've learned a lot from this forum, and although I rarely "concede" DURING a specific discussion, I often find my view has been changed, or altered, even if just a little, after having had the discussion and having had time to digest it. It's okay to be stubborn while defending your view in the middle of a discussion. What's NOT okay is to refuse to learn and grow from said discussion. Some people are capable of accepting things instantly, others, such as myself, need more time. When I say something that's wrong, say about the environment, and Balta points it out...why would I immediately agree with him, just because he has experience and education? While that lends weight to his opinions, it's doesn't make all of them insta-facts. I often have to go back and read through the links he's posted, and then search for counter views to those links and see where the facts lead. If he's right, then he's right. That's part of the fun.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) First of all, it's not about financial or personal gain at all. It's about keeping the status quo. I simply can't go a few days, or a week, or a few weeks with no pay, because I'd be right back in the courts again but it would be bankruptcy court. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one in that same situation. I realize there are people that aren't in the position to be able to serve properly, and that's fine for THOSE specific people. The problem is, MOST people, even those that CAN afford to go to jury duty and serve properly do not want too, and find ways to get out of doing so. That includes those that get paid full wages to go to jury duty. And again someone mentions going for multiple days (this time you mentioned it)...when more often than not, jury duty is -- at maximum once a year -- and usually for a single day.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 03:42 PM) Yeah, that's great...now go join a jury for two weeks and get paid $11 a day... While I understand that happens, and THOSE specific cases are an inconvenience...they're also pretty rare, to the point that I don't know a single person, at any point in my life, that's served longer than 1 day at a time. As far as I'm concerned, THOSE people have every right to b****...and you aren't one of them.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) What would you suggest then? You're crying about people not wanting to be on a jury, and it's partially because they get penalized economically for doing so....who is in the best position to pay? Well, as I see it, helping your fellow man/woman/child when it comes to jury duty isn't supposed about financial or personal gain. Our court system, which people repeatedly call the best in the world, is set up in a way in which your civic duty results in a call to help your fellow man/woman/child get a fair trail in front of a jury of their peers, who will convict the guilty and set the innocent free, or in the case of civil suits, award proper damages, if any. Being how important of an event that trial can be in a persons life, I think we should all view it in the way in which, while quite inconvenient, you're actually doing someone a great service, even if it's quite anonymous. This again comes full circle...people love to talk about how giving they are, but they only apply that "giving-ness" to things such as charitable donations, or walking for breast cancer awareness, because that's an accepted societal norm, and wearing a pink Susan G Koman shirt makes you awesome in the eyes of society, while being a juror sucks. Society doesn't care if you served on a jury and potentially prevented an innocent person from a life of hell in prison, or perhaps prevented a guilty rapist from walking the streets and ruining another set of lives...the collective hive mind decided to arbitrarily care that you walked around in a pink shirt, instead. Last I checked, people don't get paid to walk around for breast cancer awareness, either...they actually pay to do it...and it's also an all day, or multi-day event. But...that's not like jury duty...jury duty just sucks. :/ And yes, I realize one is completely voluntary...but that only works because society decided it's awesome...and unless they found a way to make jury duty as awesome as walking around for some disease, the only way to get people to serve/help/do their duty is at gun point...practically...or apparently, to bribe them. TL;DR: I try to view jury duty as *giving* someone a shot at a fair trail, be it civil or criminal...instead of an inconvenience. Something you shouldn't need to be bribed into doing for them. Not to mention it's a maximum of once a year, IF that...it's not like they're asking you to do this once a month.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 11:43 AM) I don't like the idea of employers directly subsidizing a civic duty. But if the government would tax the wealthy like it should they could ultimately be defraying the cost of such a program. Err, no. We are already spending far too much, and you want to spend even more now? And taxing the wealthy will only get you so far...hell, it wouldn't even balance the budget we have now, WITHOUT adding more too it. Rather than just saying we need to tax the wealthy more, what we truly need is a completely reformed and simplified tax code. Anything less won't come close to fixing our spending/revenue issues. At our current rate of spending, you could tax the rich at 80% and it wouldn't matter...we'd still be in deficit. And, let's not forget that if you did try to tax the rich at that rate, they'd just take their "ball of money" and leave. Because they can afford to do so. Our government needs to start implementing meaningful changes that can make a real difference, not political ones...such as the much talked about "Buffet rule", which results in almost nothing. But they won't, because why should they? People will keep electing them and they'll keep getting paid huge salaries to "work hard" at accomplishing nothing. Oh, and I'm sick of people in the government saying they're, "working hard". They don't know what hard work is, because they don't do it. Hard work results in...you know, results. They give us no results year after year...but they're working hard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 10:33 AM) Mandate that employers pay a full days wage for jury duty. Even when companies do, people still have that prevalent attitude toward jury duty.

OR, and I know this is a crazy idea, take it seriously as someones life, livelihood or future may hang in the balance and they deserve good jurors? A day may come when you're up there innocently...and those of you who feel this way better hope you don't get yourselves as potential jurors...because, well...you won't get yourselves...you'll get the garbage left over that weren't intelligent enough to weasel out of doing it.

As something of a historical expert on being "banned" or "suspended" from SoxTalk, I can honestly say that each and every time I got banned/suspended, I expected it. It's not like it came as a surprise. While it's been quite a long time since that's occurred, I think the rules are quite clear, and people know when they're doing something wrong. I have no issues with heated/passionate discussion on this board...I not only expect it, but want it. There is nothing more disheartening about the state of the modern world when people have no passion for their opinions, thoughts or feelings on the state of the world around them. Yes, it can get heated...but you have to leave it at that. Just because you disagree with someone about, say, whether the President is doing a good job or not, does not mean you have to hate them/dislike them about EVERYTHING else they have to say.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 19, 2012 -> 08:45 AM) The particular product he's talking about are products designed to enhance your workout by messing with important functions though, like heart rate/blood flow...that sort of thing does not seem like a good long-term lifestyle adjustment. Yea, these particular products seem like they'd be dangerous long term. I'd avoid any such things...these aren't lifestyle changes so much as, IMO, they're outright cheating. May as well just take Steroids and HGH, as at least you KNOW what that stuff is/does. These pseudo science/pseudo steroidal products are just dangerous...and they're probably getting around the legality of them by using odd herbs or chemicals that haven't yet been reviewed.

To be perfectly honest, I have a MORE of a problem with people arguing or getting into fights over sports than I do over political or real world issues. At least in this arena, there are things worth fighting over...sports not being one of them. I personally think the Filibuster is very thought provoking, educational, and yes, even emotional, and as far as I'm concerned, anyone that says otherwise never had any intention of having a real discussion here. This is a place where you can't just show up, post something you heard once as fact, and walk away as if you "learned" everyone. If you post something here, whether it be an opinion, interpretation, or just a set of facts...they better be real...because I assure you they'll be checked. I love that about this board. Anyone that has come here for a discussion and never learned anything didn't come here for a discussion, they came here for an argument. There are many posters that I often disagree with on this board, and even they, at times, have shown me things I never would have thought of myself, or corrected me on something I've said that wasn't quite right. Yea, the discussions can get heated and emotional, but that's because what we discuss here are actual, real world, life affecting events that matter. If you aren't willing to be emotional about those things, and accept other people can get emotional about those things...don't come here.

QUOTE (kapzk @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 09:06 PM) Hmmm I dont understand why PV is back out there His arm is still attached...he's no good to us right now.

QUOTE (winninguglyin83 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 08:55 PM) Slam time I'm calling it. You owe us 4 rib's.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 08:53 PM) Rally Slayer up to bat... I'm not taking it back.

Rally Slayer up to bat...

QUOTE (fathom @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 08:46 PM) Disagree, I would say Escobar has less downside, if that makes sense. All Escobar has to do is bat .200, which sucks for an average, and he'd be 2x as good as helmet head.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 09:38 AM) He runs one of the biggest market cap companies in the world. That is why people care. More than anything I wonder if this will start to move BRK towards a clear plan of succession. What does this have to do with my statement? I didn't say "people" shouldn't care. I spoke for myself. As in, *I* don't care. And it has nothing to do with what company he runs...my only point is he's 81 years old. He has an illness...and? He's 81! He's at the age where you get...illnesses. It would be news to me if it was Mark Zuckerberg...a young man. This is not the case. Anyone investing in BRK knows, or at least should know, that the person running it is 81 and time isn't slowing down. It's just not a surprise when old people get sick...it's expected.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 18, 2012 -> 08:41 AM) Warren Buffett announces he has prostate cancer. However, the version he has is treatable and the 5 year survival rate is close to 100% from this cancer type. He's also 81. I'm not sure why, but when super old people announce some illness...I tend to not care.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 01:50 PM) I think he was being sarcastic. He was.