Talk about computer hardware here.
Moderator: victimizati0n
-
Guest
#46
Post
by Guest » Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:06 pm
fat fuck
-
neuralmop
- Site Druggie
- Posts: 675
- Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:33 pm
-
Contact:
#47
Post
by neuralmop » Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:53 pm
Gahhhh.. I can't really talk, because it doesn't seem to bother you. Heh.
I sympathyse with palm, though - that doesn't make sense that if standards go up, the standard for underweight would be the standard for normal...
-
mannyace
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:46 am
#48
Post
by mannyace » Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:04 pm
im underweight and tall so its strange...
overall if the standard of a whole population goes up, then yes the underweight weight also goes up
that means palm would have to up his weight from 30yrs ago to now to be maintain underweight status, if he din up his weight hed be less than underweight now
-
palmboy5
- Site Administrator
- Posts: 7477
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:40 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
#49
Post
by palmboy5 » Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:09 pm
"less than underweight" is NOT "normal", its 'omg-have-you-been-eating-at-all?!?".
For computers, buying cheaply and often will only leave you constantly in a world of shit.
-
2005
- Site Jock
- Posts: 2258
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:49 pm
- Location: 127.0.0.1
#50
Post
by 2005 » Wed Aug 10, 2005 8:37 am
In todays world perfection is demanded. So you need to be the ideal weight for your height. Smarter people will realize though, that if a person is particularly muscular that his weight will reflect that.
You shouldnt be under and you shouldnt be over.
