Quote by Cianyx
How so?

I know that "roid rage" is a medically documented thing, the increase in testosterone levels associated with taking steroids can cause extremely aggressive behavior. Though reading on wikipedia, studies are apparently conflicting, limited by difficulties associated with studying illegal drug use.

There are a couple major examples I know off hand though. Chris Benoit, as previously mentioned, is one major example. There's also the Oscar Pistorius case (, the guy who ran in the olympics with artificial legs.

I'll admit it's not as well documented a I thought it was though...
Quote by Nelsean
A friend of mine worked at a gym and sold oral pill form steroids to people working out. Yeah, body builders are all over the place with that shit.

My best friends father was a professional body builder. Huge like a tank and buff as a gorilla and his chiseled jaw structure is proof of his usage of steroids.

Well that's all well and good, we realize steroids are definitely out there and available. But did any of these people you know experience the negative consequences associated with it, or do you think there use of steroids was careful and reasonable? I guess if your friends deal with steroids you're probably ok with them ethically... but do you worry about your friends going nuts on roid rage or something? Cause that definitely happens.
Reading JimmyBanks6's remarks on the side of effects, it seems like anabolic steroids are illegal for the same reason so many other drugs are, that they are dangerous because of the psychological and behavorial side effects on users and abusers. There's always pro wrestler Chris Benoit, whose roid-rage induced murder-suicide became a text book example used in DARE classes throughout america (all you brits probably missed out on Drug Abuse Resistance Education, but it's exactly what it sounds like). But if it was demonstrated that the adverse effects of steroids could be mitigated with lower, less frequent doses, I don't see the problem with using them to get big and stay big, to win body building competitions that allow steroid use, and to feel confident and satisfied. Natural means are definitely less risky, but it seems there is a such thing as responsible use.
Quote by bass-fale47
Back in Arnold's day steroids were legal and they were openly discussed amongst bodybuilders. Arnold claims he only used them to maintain muscle which, if you've seen pictures of him when he was young, is sort of believable (he was already pretty big before he started taking them.) Also back then then used smaller doses.)

Hearing that he only used steroid sparingly to maintain muscle is interesting because it implies his usage of them wasn't especially harmful. I know that steroid technology has improved since Arnold's hey-day, and if he was taking smaller doses back then he probably was not getting nearly the effect many modern body builders go for. But for all we know that could be bullshit, and it's possible that Arnold was greatly understating his steroid use. Do you think he's an example of relatively healthy steroid use? He probably felt some of the side effects, but nothing that slowed down his incredibly successful career.
Quote by lt mittens
well if anybody roids it makes a fair match doesn't it?
i think there are even 2 different leagues for bodybuilders, those who roid and those who are natural. because there's no way somebody can put on 250lbs muscle on a 5ft7 frame without help of science.

It mittens, you're totally right about there being two different leagues. I'm just not sure how much of a competition it is when everyone is taking steroids, in the anything-goes body builder competitions. Does it encourage them to take more steroid in less healthy ways? Can it still be fair even if some competitors are willing to over do it to the point of long-term bodily injury, while others feel the need to remain careful and not damage their bodies even if that hinders their success in competition?
Hey everybody, I was curious about different people's opinions on anabolic steroid use to build muscle. For the longest time I thought they were illegal and frowned upon in all competitive settings, similar to the way they are in cycling, baseball and the olympics. But it recently came to my attention that anabolic steroids are basically inherent to competitive body building, that they're not federally illegal, and that all the famous body builders such as Frank Zane and Arnold Schwarzenegger relied on steroids as well as exercise, proper diet, and other lifestyle modifications to reach the level of success they had as body builders. This is something I don't know how to feel about. I've been well taught (brain washed?) by years of anti-drug education to think that steroids are a bad thing, but I know there are undisputed side effects associated with them. But is it possible to use them healthily, or at least less harmfully, as part of a training regimen or something? There's a large community of "natural" body builders who are opposed to steroid use, but there is also an entire community associated with steroid culture, so there are definitely people who feel strongly both ways on this issue. If you were into body building, would you use steroids? (Please keep from discussing/criticizing body building as a whole, I know many people are opposed to it as a practice but that's not the point of this thread). Thanks.
Shameless suburban poser, who rides a razor scooter because his mom won't let him get a skate board, and sneaks out of the house at night with four other friends to smoke a cigarette (one cigarette) given to them by the older kid with divorced parents. Upon each drag, you cough and remark "that's some good shit."

Grizzly Bear.
Youth pastors are not obnoxious, impatient, or mean people. If you be honest and say that you are not interested in being part of a church organization and that you don't believe in god, he should understand. I promise you it won't be the first time that he's encountered a disinterested teenager.
First full beer I ever had was on an exchange program to Northern ITaly in a German pub. i haven't had a beer that good since then. It was called Schneiders.
When Primus played John the Fisherman, I headbanged so hard that I go a headache. Felt good.
Quote by rockingamer2
Rule of thumb is 15%, so $1.50. But be a pal and round it up to $2.

Correction: rule of thumb is 15-20%, depending on quality of service and how you round.
Out of curiosity, I must ask: how old are you and how much beer do you drink? I'm 16 and I've just started drinking beer, and although I like some beer (magic hat, prima, yeungling) I find guiness way to strong. However, my dad loves it. I think it comes with age and experience drinking beer.
We may be pit monkeys, but we are not your pit monkeys.
I, for one, appreciate his honest attempt to help guitarists get prefessional sounds easily. Sure, he could be failing, but its not his fault he's new to the world of guitar. Cut him some slack.
A tissue box with a rubber band around it.
Cartoon network isn't all bad. It's got somewhat of a resurgence of the "wqhat can we slip past the censors" era of the 90's going on. The shows "Adventure Time" and "The Misadventures of Flapjack" are really, legitimately funny.
A slab of ground beef and a meat hammer.
A Public Service Announcement:
In any situation where you are speaking with another person, and that person accidentally expels saliva from their mouth while speaking, do not call them out on it. They were almost definitely aware that they did it, and are most likely already embarassed. Calling them out will provide no benefit to you or others, and will only make that person more embarassed, which is not necessary.

We will now return to you scheduled programming, "Yo Gabba Gabba".
I have this fear of dummies. Ventriloquist dummies, life size human models (although not showroom dummies), and MARIONETTE DOLLS. Marionette dolls are the scariest damn things on earth.

[QUOTE}I guess talking on the phone... but I don't know whether I'd go as far as calling it a phobia...
how does that work?
please don't ban me
well I've been sufficiently humiliated
Hell Yeah

Paranoid Android - Radiohead
Quote by Jon777
My dad was somewhat famous in the 70's.

Care to elaborate? let me guess... Drug Dealer for the celebrities?
Or maybe we just don't have the technology to accurately measure those things?
Scott Weidensaul, birder. author, and educator. He's written over 40 books, one of which have earned him a pulitzer prize.

I also know Kenn Kaufman, author of "The Kaufman guide to birds" and chief editor of a field guide series in his name. Needless to say, I am a bird nerd.
Quote by cho0onger
It's 2AM currently, and this genuinely scared the holy hell out of me. It's just so... eerie.

EDIT: Especially the second one. No, it isn't a screamer or anything like that.

And to think, I was considering masturbating tonight. Now I won't even sleep.
Quote by valennic
Hypothesis /=/ theory.

I'm using theory in the colloquial sense not the scientific sense. This is the pit, not a scientific journal.
So I've got this theory...

It is that the quality of song, band, album, or genre are completely irrelevant of human opinion, and are instead consistent amounts. So Music that is musically intelligent, original, catchy, and well-written is good, regardless of whether or not people like it. On the other hand, Music that is unoriginal, boring, overly simple, trite, and not respectable is bad, no matter if people like it.

For example, let's look at a band that everybody has to respect, even if they don't like their music: The Beatles. Their style was original, and influential. Their songs were catchy, with a clearly good understanding of songwriting. Their musicianship was sufficient (although Ringo's is debatable) and they continued to experiment and change as they went on, producing new and always interesting music. I know there are some exceptions, but one has to agree they are empirically good.

On the other hand, let's look at Justin Bieber. His lack of originality is obvious, because he borrows so heavily from greats like Michael Jackson, NSYNC, and just about every other notable pop artist of the last 15 years. His dedication is questionable, he does not write his own songs, and the songs he does sing are all very similar and forgettable.

I sound like a snob here, but I am not saying I like all "good" music and hate all "bad" music. I enjoy the soulless pop hits of Ke$ha and Britney Spears, but I can't stand others like Mos Def or Michael Jackson, who most people would say are amazing, innovative, or talented.

So what do you think? Does my theory have some weight?
Simon Cowell is so 00's.
I'm surprised that I'm the first one to say Kensai.

Quote by Eddie4President
Michael Jackson.

whimper... cry...
Maybe I don't understand true love, but it sounds like this isn't worth going through with.
The only ones I can think of died before they were thrity. Jaco Pastorius Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobaine, Janis Joplin, the list goes on...

Edit: Except for Radiohead. None of them have died yet.
It all depends. Will she be permanently satisfied from munching on a few fingers, or will she expect to eat more and more until you're just a brain stem and a skeleton? Or can't you just give her your spare kidney?
Primus is going to be coming to town in early october. Had I bought the tickets a month ago, I could pay $45 for any seat in the house. Now I'll pay $78 for balcon seats. But its Primus, it's worth it.
Quote by mattman93
I would agree that microwaving a cake is stupid but I haven't tried it yet, brb.

Also a better way to get it out would be mix it it a bowl and spray the mug with oil then pour the mixture in.

One more step, one more itme to clean, one more minute.
I have recently discovered something that is extremely awesome: A recipe to make an awesome cake in a mug in a microwave. The recpe can be found here:

I have just made one. It's nice and easy with a very short time to make and a short ingredient list that you might already have around your house (if anyone who lives there bakes). This recipe is for chocolate cake, but in theory variations could be made. It tastes excellent, because how can you go wrong with chocolate, chocolate, and more chocolate? The texture isn't exactly conventional; it is extremely thick and heavy with a sponge-like quality. But considering there is a such thing as sponge cake, that's not really a problem. The guy also offers a few modifications that might lighten it up.

There is one practical problem, however. The mug used to cook it is extremely hard to clean. Greasing the mug before hand might help, but is unreliable do to the fact that grease has to be applied before any other ingredients are added for mixing.

Also, this might seem obvious, but the mug is HOT when finished baking. Withdrawal from microwave carefully, and try to only touch the mug's handle.

I once threw a party, partially with the intent of allowing a certain two people I know to get to know each other, with the intent of them dating at some point in the future. However, the girl got asked out by another dude the day before the party. However, she came anyway, with her boyfriend, to the party.
My Male friend, whom I was trying to set up, had already been on a losing streak with the ladies prior to this. When the couple previously mentioned started making out, I noticed my friend start to cry and run out the door. I looked outside for him, but I didn't see a trace. I figured he'd just gone home to calm down and think of something else for a while. That's also what his mom thought when he spent the rest of the night completely silent in his room. He was found having hung himself the next morning.
Later that day, before they even knew, the couple broke up on an unrelated issue.
Sounds like you two have a lot in common!

Also: In my state (Pennsylvania), and probably at least a few others, we have the four year rule. If one of or both people are under 18, then it is ok as long as they were born within four years of each other.