Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

The PED questions I get

124»

Replies

  • VintageFelineVintageFeline Member Posts: 6,771 Member Member Posts: 6,771 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    n=1 is not a conclusive study.
  • SideSteelSideSteel Member Posts: 11,077 Member Member Posts: 11,077 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    Wow, that's low. The fact that you brought up such a deadly disease like that you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether it was intended for me or not the fact that you would use something like cancer and diseases killed so many people to your benefit. You're a disgusting human being. That's being reported

    It should be pretty clear that it is an analogy. You are directly claiming multiple times in this thread that you have to have experienced steroid use to have any opinion whatsoever on steroids.
    edited April 2017
  • 3bambi33bambi3 Member Posts: 1,650 Member Member Posts: 1,650 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    Wow, that's low. The fact that you brought up such a deadly disease like that you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether it was intended for me or not the fact that you would use something like cancer and diseases killed so many people to your benefit. You're a disgusting human being. That's being reported

    Just...what?

    He's pointing out that he doesn't have to have used steroids to be knowledgeable about them. Just like oncologists don't have to have cancer to be knowledgeable about it. And gynecologists don't have to have a uterus to be knowledgeable about them.
  • VintageFelineVintageFeline Member Posts: 6,771 Member Member Posts: 6,771 Member
    There seems to be a lot of inappropriate use of the flag feature. But I'm not especially au fait as I'm too lazy to use it other than for pro ana posts and you use the report feature for that.
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    Wow, that's low. The fact that you brought up such a deadly disease like that you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether it was intended for me or not the fact that you would use something like cancer and diseases killed so many people to your benefit. You're a disgusting human being. That's being reported

    Just...what?

    He's pointing out that he doesn't have to have used steroids to be knowledgeable about them. Just like oncologists don't have to have cancer to be knowledgeable about it. And gynecologists don't have to have a uterus to be knowledgeable about them.

    Again your brilliance amazes me, the both of you. The doctors you speak of study and research their particular field for 8+ years. They dedicate day and night to learning about the field they are going into so that when they do speak on it they are quite knowledgeable. Unless the person above has been going to school and studying steroids For the past four years he cannot claim to understand exactly how they work, what they do, studies and research that he happen to find online. You cannot compare the one study he found to people who spend 8+ years and dedicating their lives to help people with cancer.
    edited April 2017
  • TR0bertsTR0berts Member Posts: 7,785 Member Member Posts: 7,785 Member
    There seems to be a lot of inappropriate use of the flag feature. But I'm not especially au fait as I'm too lazy to use it other than for pro ana posts and you use the report feature for that.

    I'd say there seems to be a bit/lot of willful ignorance.
  • 3bambi33bambi3 Member Posts: 1,650 Member Member Posts: 1,650 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    Wow, that's low. The fact that you brought up such a deadly disease like that you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether it was intended for me or not the fact that you would use something like cancer and diseases killed so many people to your benefit. You're a disgusting human being. That's being reported

    Just...what?

    He's pointing out that he doesn't have to have used steroids to be knowledgeable about them. Just like oncologists don't have to have cancer to be knowledgeable about it. And gynecologists don't have to have a uterus to be knowledgeable about them.

    Again your brilliance amazes me, the both of you. The doctors you speak of study and research their particular field for 8+ years. They dedicate day and night to learning about the field they are going into so that when they do speak on it they are quite knowledgeable. Unless the person above has been going to school and studying steroids For the past four years he cannot claim to understand exactly how they work, what they do, studies and research that he happen to find online. You cannot compare the one study he found to people who spend 8+ years and dedicating their lives to help people with cancer.

    So...have you dedicated years to the study of steroids? Or does using them somehow negate the need for study?
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    So science and scientific studies aren't facts...but your personal experience is?

    No, science does not equal fact. Why do you think that things constantly change?? Scientific studies show that eggs are bad for you then scientific study show you that eggs aren't bad feel scientific study show you the coffee is bad for you then scientific studies come out and say it's not bad for you. Science is not equal fact. I never once have I ever stated that I am 100% correct on everything I say and that I know everything I don't know where you're getting that from. The problem is you're embarrassed Because you think a science equals fact when we know it doesn't.

    Things constantly change because:

    1) Media reports on research and it's often media outlets distributing sound-bite conclusions to the public. Often erroneously.

    2) Evaluating research properly needs to consider study strengths and weaknesses along with considering the entirety of evidence available on the topic rather than a single study. To use your previous false statements as an example, if we had 200 studies where they gave steroids to a sedentary population and they sat on the couch and didn't gain any muscle, and we had 1 study showing they did, and we properly evaluate the strengths and limitations of those studies we would most likely conclude that in all likelihood, steroids don't add mass if you don't lift. But I'll note that this is just an example, and that there AREN'T 200 studies on this like you falsely assumed so that you could avoid being wrong. But this is a good example.

    And I would you know there are multiple studies? I don't have to look at studies, I am the subject. I've done this. Have you?

    No I have not used steroids. I did have some caffeine today though, I hope I'll be ok.
    Does your oncologist have to have cancer in order for you to consider her opinion?

    Wow, that's low. The fact that you brought up such a deadly disease like that you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of whether it was intended for me or not the fact that you would use something like cancer and diseases killed so many people to your benefit. You're a disgusting human being. That's being reported

    Just...what?

    He's pointing out that he doesn't have to have used steroids to be knowledgeable about them. Just like oncologists don't have to have cancer to be knowledgeable about it. And gynecologists don't have to have a uterus to be knowledgeable about them.

    Again your brilliance amazes me, the both of you. The doctors you speak of study and research their particular field for 8+ years. They dedicate day and night to learning about the field they are going into so that when they do speak on it they are quite knowledgeable. Unless the person above has been going to school and studying steroids For the past four years he cannot claim to understand exactly how they work, what they do, studies and research that he happen to find online. You cannot compare the one study he found to people who spend 8+ years and dedicating their lives to help people with cancer.

    So...have you dedicated years to the study of steroids? Or does using them somehow negate the need for study?

    I can guarantee you my research on them it's for more detailed did the research he read for one study. Knowing what I was going to put into my body when I did them was something I took it very seriously. Not to mention the fact that actually doing them feeling the results seeing the results or the Non results, yes Makes me more in tuned to how they work and don't work
  • Sara1791Sara1791 Member Posts: 760 Member Member Posts: 760 Member
    BHFF wrote: »
    Sara1791 wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    BHFF wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199607043350101#t=articleResults

    lify48sm6c61.jpeg


    Note that the non exercise group given steroids showed a significant increase to lean mass

    If you have never been on steroids before that I don't want to hear your opinion. There is no such thing as a miracle drug. There are so many variables within the study you showed. What were their diets like the non steroid users the steroid users the exercisers the none exercisers? It doesn't say.

    You're free to disregard any opinion of mine you'd like, but I haven't stated an opinion in the post you're quoting. I shared a controlled study. This study is not my opinion, it is a study.

    Note: Strength measures in the non exercise group went up. Meaning, steroids increased their strength without them doing any lifting at all.

    You Chose one study, I'm sure there are hundreds of studies, you specifically chose one that fits your argument. Within that study there is no information showing diet. That is a big problem for me considering diet has more of a factor on body composition than working out does

    bust 'em out

    Nah no need Sara. I AM the research
    And you're so everyone remembers, science does not equal fact. Science is not fact.
    Shoot, Pluto is a planet up to about four years ago LOL oooppps

    OP, I'm open to learning something, I'm OK with having my assumptions crushed, I really enjoy intelligent argument, but I can't just take your personal feelings as proof. Your "guarantee" means nothing to me. I was really hoping you had something substantive to say.

    I appreciate that you're being as open and honest as you can be, I believe that you believe, but that is not enough for me. I'm not picking on you, I have no bad feelings toward you, I'm not mad at all, but I'm out.
  • IVMayIVMay Member Posts: 442 Member Member Posts: 442 Member
    Oh well - you're no longer taking them and did 3 cycles the last of which was a few years ago, correct?
    If they want to believe you're still taking - so what? Nobody knows your name and your income doesn't depend off being in this industry as a 'natural' so who cares what they think? Don't stress about it. Long as you're healthy and doing OK and your loved ones are OK. You're the first lifter I've come across who is so concerned about what people think of their PEDs who isn't dependent on selling supplements or income based on their lifting. 99% don't care nor generally bring it up. You look decent. What's the problem? All good.
  • BHFFBHFF Member Posts: 421 Member Member Posts: 421 Member
    IVMay wrote: »
    Oh well - you're no longer taking them and did 3 cycles the last of which was a few years ago, correct?
    If they want to believe you're still taking - so what? Nobody knows your name and your income doesn't depend off being in this industry as a 'natural' so who cares what they think? Don't stress about it. Long as you're healthy and doing OK and your loved ones are OK. You're the first lifter I've come across who is so concerned about what people think of their PEDs who isn't dependent on selling supplements or income based on their lifting. 99% don't care nor generally bring it up. You look decent. What's the problem? All good.

    If you only saw the enormous ammt of personal messages sent to me calling me a "fake natty, pics aren't me, meat head, roid rage, small di*k etc etc etc" you'd understand why I wanted to set the record straight
  • VintageFelineVintageFeline Member Posts: 6,771 Member Member Posts: 6,771 Member
    You know you only make the misconceptions worse by drawing attention to yourself in this way in these threads right?
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium Posts: 37,754 MFP Moderator Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium Posts: 37,754 MFP Moderator
    In typical fashion, it seems we cannot leave emotion out of a discussion and are starting to belittle each other. Thread has been closed based on the fact it's violating the below policy. If there are concerns, please feel free to let me know.

    1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation

    a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.

    b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.


    Thank you,

    psuLemon
This discussion has been closed.