WashPost Article on Strength Training

JMW said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

"Just admit you're intellectually
dishonest."

Ah, the irony ...

What? You've done it before?

--Blair
"You're the poster boy?"

Lance Freezeland said:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:

Quoted message said:

BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,

Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is.
I win."

Speaking of irony:

Lance said:

Blair said:

Lance said:

Blair wrote:
>10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.

Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.

So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.

No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.

So you were wrong, and I proved it.

--Blair
"Any more questions, 'lawyer'?"

Blair P. Houghton said:

Lance Freezeland said:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:

Quoted message said:

BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,

Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
is. I win."

Speaking of irony:

Lance said:

Blair said:

Lance wrote:
> Blair wrote:
>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>
> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.

So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.

No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.

So you were wrong, and I proved it.

I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
that you posted it.

Peter

Peter Allen said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Lance Freezeland said:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:
> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,

Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
is. I win."

Speaking of irony:

Lance said:

Blair wrote:
> Lance wrote:
>> Blair wrote:
>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>
>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>
> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.

No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.

So you were wrong, and I proved it.

I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
that you posted it.

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
means that LESS product is produced past that point.

There's one thing that would make that work. Taking enzyme out of
the system by overwhelming it with reactant might allow the reaction
to proceed in reverse at a higher rate. No. Doesn't work. As long as
you're still adding reactant you're still forcing what's left of the
enzyme to move the reaction forward. Unless the reverse reaction can
proceed without the catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose
into the reactants.

Graphs in that link are produced assuming the reaction doesn't go the
opposite way (product to substrate) at all. Note "k+2" in the reaction
scheme above the graph and the absense of "k-2".

Yet there is the optimal INTERMEDIATE substrate concentration that
corresponds to the maximum reaction rate.

The reaction rate (Y axis there) is like "speed of the car". The
product concentration is like "miles traveled". You travel LESS total
miles when going at a slower speed.

Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a [censored]
clue, is just dancing to save face.
What is his [censored] point??
He thinks cuz he maybe remembers y=mx+b, he's some kind of [censored] scientist,
but he doesn't even qualify as a dilletante.
Mebbe a dildotante.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"DZ" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
means that LESS product is produced past that point.

There's one thing that would make that work. Taking enzyme out of
the system by overwhelming it with reactant might allow the reaction
to proceed in reverse at a higher rate. No. Doesn't work. As long as
you're still adding reactant you're still forcing what's left of the
enzyme to move the reaction forward. Unless the reverse reaction can
proceed without the catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose
into the reactants.

Graphs in that link are produced assuming the reaction doesn't go the
opposite way (product to substrate) at all. Note "k+2" in the reaction
scheme above the graph and the absense of "k-2".

Yet there is the optimal INTERMEDIATE substrate concentration that
corresponds to the maximum reaction rate.

The reaction rate (Y axis there) is like "speed of the car". The
product concentration is like "miles traveled". You travel LESS total
miles when going at a slower speed.

Let's see:
Blair.... TBR.... Blair.... TBR.... uummm, wow, decisions...
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"JMW" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Lance Freezeland <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:
>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>
> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
> is. I win."

Speaking of irony:

Lance wrote:
> Blair wrote:
>> Lance wrote:
>>> Blair wrote:
>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>
>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>
>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>
> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.

So you were wrong, and I proved it.

I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly
amazed
that you posted it.

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:50:26 -0400, JMW <[email hidden]> gave us:

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

Lance Freezeland <[email hidden]> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:
>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>
> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
> is. I win."

Speaking of irony:

Lance wrote:
> Blair wrote:
>> Lance wrote:
>>> Blair wrote:
>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>
>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>
>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>
> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.

So you were wrong, and I proved it.

I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly amazed
that you posted it.

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

It's what he does. He's a complete waste of oxygen and time.

--
Lance

"Any pitcher who throws at a batter and deliberately tries to hit
him is a communist." -- Alvin Dark

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article <[email hidden]>,

Lance Freezeland said:

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 21:50:26 -0400, JMW <[email hidden]> gave us:

Quoted message said:

Peter Allen said:

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> Lance Freezeland <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:17:14 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email hidden]> gave us:
>>> BTW, I proved Freezeland wrong,
>>
>> Hardly. What you did was predict that Miguel Batista would be
>> declared "utterly innocent" by the MLB appeals process and that he
>> would not serve a single day of suspension. I called for a 20 game
>> suspension. When Batista received (and served) a 10 game suspension,
>> you declared victory, stating "10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days
>> is. I win."
>
> Speaking of irony:
>
> Lance wrote:
>> Blair wrote:
>>> Lance wrote:
>>>> Blair wrote:
>>>>> 10 days is closer to 0 than 20 days is. I win.
>>>>
>>>> Your math skills suck as badly as do your logic skills.
>>>
>>> So you're saying 20 is closer to 0 than 10 is. And judging my math.
>>
>> No, I'm prepared to admit that I read that incorrectly. When I first
>> read it, I interpreted it to mean that 10 was closer to 0 than 20 was
>> to 10. See, Blair, it's okay to admit that you were wrong. You
>> should try it, as you were ridiculously wrong here.
>
> So you were wrong, and I proved it.

I think this is what we in the UK would call an 'own goal'. I'm truly
amazed
that you posted it.

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

It's what he does. He's a complete waste of oxygen and time.

Exactly what his parents concluded after seeing the mutant pop out.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

JMW said:

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

No, that's reality.

You're the one overworking your imagination.

--Blair
"Ask Freezeland what state St. Louis
is in..."

Proctologically Violated©® said:

Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a [censored]
clue, is just dancing to save face.

You never did tell us how you were going to prove that
exercise doesn't burn fat.

Quoted message said:

What is his [censored] point??

That you're a liar and anything you say about me is
negated by your refusal to develop credibility.

Quoted message said:

He thinks cuz he maybe remembers y=mx+b, he's some kind of [censored] scientist,
but he doesn't even qualify as a dilletante.
Mebbe a dildotante.

I still bet you're using your real name.

--Blair
"Or wishing so."

DZ said:

Blair P Houghton said:

DZ said:

The reaction rate (Y axis) is in fact measured by the increase in
molar concentration of the product of that reaction per unit
time. That the curve has a peak at the optimal substrate concentration
means that LESS product is produced past that point.

There's one thing that would make that work. Taking enzyme out of
the system by overwhelming it with reactant might allow the reaction
to proceed in reverse at a higher rate. No. Doesn't work. As long as
you're still adding reactant you're still forcing what's left of the
enzyme to move the reaction forward. Unless the reverse reaction can
proceed without the catalyst, you can't get the product to decompose
into the reactants.

Graphs in that link are produced assuming the reaction doesn't go the
opposite way (product to substrate) at all. Note "k+2" in the reaction
scheme above the graph and the absense of "k-2".

Yet there is the optimal INTERMEDIATE substrate concentration that
corresponds to the maximum reaction rate.

The reaction rate (Y axis there) is like "speed of the car". The
product concentration is like "miles traveled". You travel LESS total
miles when going at a slower speed.

As in, the faster the enzyme is tied up, the fewer times
it can be recycled to promote reactant to product.

I'll buy that.

Although I don't think it applies to protein at the levels
we're talking about, because other data show that protein
intakes up to several g/kg bodyweight still produce better
results for more intake.

--Blair
"Win some, lose some."

Blair P. Houghton said:

It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
want you to see the instances I was referring to.
Because they prove he's a [censored] lawyer. And that in those
instances when he's totally busted on his legal mistakes
he simply disappears rather than admitting he's wrong.

I haven't disappeared, Blair. I'm just choose to ignore you sometimes.
You obviously suffer from some sort of psychopathology, probably a
severe personality disorder, and it makes you utterly incapable of
admitting error. Under those circumstances, nothing I say, nor
anything anyone else says, will suffice to prove you wrong; you will
continue twisting your arguments, changing the parameters, insulting
others, and claiming victory until people get tired of arguing with
you. All the regulars in MFW have caught onto this, just like folks
did in all the other newsgroups that you haunted in the past.

When things reach this point, the only action we can take is to
ridicule you. Eventually, you will tire of that treatment, and you
will run off to another newsgroup where you can attempt to nourish your
fragile ego. Until then, I will do as I see fit, and I imagine a few
others will do likewise.

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Proctologically Violated©® said:

Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a [censored]
clue, is just dancing to save face.

You never did tell us how you were going to prove that
exercise doesn't burn fat.

Ackshooly, it's taking me a while to put it together in a way so's that
you'll understand it.
But I realize now that this is probably impossible, so it'll be ready in a
cupla days. Really quite interesting. Also, some of us have real jobs, and
don't live w/ our moms.

Also, I would like to make a bet, but you have insufficient character to
honor anything, I'm sure, including not pissing in yer mom's sink.
That bet would be: If I'm right, that you never ever post on any
fitness/health ng's again.
For all concerned.
Oh yeah, if I'm wrong, then, OK, you can SMD.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is his [censored] point??

That you're a liar and anything you say about me is
negated by your refusal to develop credibility.

Quoted message said:

He thinks cuz he maybe remembers y=mx+b, he's some kind of [censored] scientist,
but he doesn't even qualify as a dilletante.
Mebbe a dildotante.

I still bet you're using your real name.

--Blair
"Or wishing so."

I have a cat like Blare.
He's always runnin after [censored], swattin at [censored] that don't exist, always
making trouble, stealing my food, pissing all over the place--this cat will
[censored] on yer leg if you stand still long enough.
But, unlike Blare, this cat is actually real smart, and kind of cute.
Like Blare, also a neighborhood nuisance, in this case chasing people's
dogs'n'[censored], causing me all kinds of problems.
But unlike Blare, this cat is pretty bad-ass brave, whilst Blare is one of
these bratty noisey little [censored] cowards.
----------------------------
Mr. P.V.'d
formerly Droll Troll
"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JMW said:

It's sometimes interesting to watch Blair create a completely separate
reality where he's right and you're wrong.

No, that's reality.

You're the one overworking your imagination.

--Blair
"Ask Freezeland what state St. Louis
is in..."

In article <[email hidden]>,

JMW said:

Until then, I will do as I see fit, and I imagine a few
others will do likewise.

Way ahead of you there John.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

In article <[email hidden]>,

Proctologically Violated©® said:

I have a cat like Blare.

Then you need to have it put to sleep.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

JMW said:

Blair P. Houghton said:

It wasn't the instance I was referring to when I made the
claim of proving him wrong, but it suffices. He doesn't
want you to see the instances I was referring to.
Because they prove he's a [censored] lawyer. And that in those
instances when he's totally busted on his legal mistakes
he simply disappears rather than admitting he's wrong.

I haven't disappeared, Blair. I'm just choose to ignore you sometimes.

Who said you disappeared? I was talking about Freezeland.

Quoted message said:

You obviously suffer from some sort of psychopathology, probably a
severe personality disorder, and it makes you utterly incapable of
admitting error.

Given the number of errors I've admitted in the past two days,
you're not possessed of any concern for reality.

Look up "Projection," then get a shrink to help you stop it.

Quoted message said:

Under those circumstances, nothing I say, nor
anything anyone else says, will suffice to prove you wrong; you will
continue twisting your arguments, changing the parameters, insulting
others, and claiming victory until people get tired of arguing with
you. All the regulars in MFW have caught onto this, just like folks
did in all the other newsgroups that you haunted in the past.

The "regulars" you refer to consist of a gun-nut who won't
stop trolling, a troll who won't stop running into his own
nonsense, and you, but you seem to think you're someone else.

You've "caught onto" nothing, and have made up a stack of lies
that seem to comfort you in your ignorance.

Quoted message said:

When things reach this point, the only action we can take is to
ridicule you. Eventually, you will tire of that treatment, and you
will run off to another newsgroup where you can attempt to nourish your
fragile ego. Until then, I will do as I see fit, and I imagine a few
others will do likewise.

Are you Freezeland now, or is this yet another personality
you've invented to replace your lack of a natural one?

--Blair
"P-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n. Write it on
the back of your hand."

Proctologically Violated©® said:

"Blair P. Houghton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Proctologically Violated©® said:

Don't even bother discussing this with this idiot. He doesn't have a [censored]
clue, is just dancing to save face.

You never did tell us how you were going to prove that
exercise doesn't burn fat.

Ackshooly, it's taking me a while to put it together in a way so's that
you'll understand it.

Just post the outline. Comedy that good wouldn't need a
polished delivery.

--Blair
"Exercise doesn't burn fat.
Genius."

In article <[email hidden]>,

Blair P. Houghton said:

In fact, when I sarcastically posted "10 days is closer to
0 than 20 days is. I win," I was also admitting then that
I was wrong,

For Blair, saying "I win" is as close as he comes to admitting he's
wrong.

Seth
--
99% of the time, he is rude to the people who do in fact deserve
it. -- Will Brink