Lose fat and gain muscle without cardio!
Discover the cardio free fat loss workouts using weight training exercise and interval training to burn fat, get rid of stubborn belly fat, and build muscle.
5 Fat Loss Myths:
Why Long, Slow Boring Cardio is not the Best Fat Loss Program to Increase Your Metabolism and Burn Belly Fat...
The Skinny Guys Guide To
Lightning Fast Muscle Growth
Attention Skinny Guys who can’t build muscle or gain weight no matter how hard they try.
Discover The Key to Explosively Fast Muscle Gain…in Just 45 Minutes or Less…3 Days a Week!
Take just five minutes to read this because you'll see how you can get a killer beach body like this in less time than you ever thought before...
When using nunchakus, it’s important to understand that the length of the strings can make a difference in techniques. Learn how to strike with a nunchaku and return to a position of power with hel…
Give Me 2 Hours - And I will Give You the Secret to Crippling Your Opponent’s Focus with a Glance, Glacial Calm in Fights and the Underground Techniques for Triggering Match-Dominating Aggression at Will
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
This guy is a Moron. maybe he should work more on losing weight than giving martial arts advice
haha.. now he is a cheerful person..! nunchaku! lol…
I generally don’t use wikipedia if I can help it. An encyclopedia written by anybody who cares to have an opinion can’t be a credible source of information.Of course there is no absolute language. yet there are absolute words for things. If words were not absolute, we would never know what the hell anybody was talking about. Of course there is slang, but that is a completely different ball of wax all together.
anybody who doubts the validity of wikipedia always and without fail uses the false claim that it’s without modaration and filled with naive posts…now new posts have to be confirmed as valid before any change is approved.personally I think it’s where you are getting your information and you’re just BSing be atm.
When did I ever say it is without moderation or contains naive posts? I just said I do not trust an encyclopedia written by joe public. I know full well it is moderated, but that just means I have to put my trust in a group of moderators to find every mistake, typo, or purposeful falsehood.One of my sources for the panda name info was a website run by the smithsonian national zoological park. If it sounds like the wikipedia entry, that may be because somebody copy/pasted that article there.
And even though the smithsonian should be a trustworthy source, I still looked up another source just to be certain I was not spreading false information. Must be my inner scientist.
it isn’t written by joe public, it’s transcribed by joe public. i’m quite sure that good ol’ Joe didn’t write the article from the smithsonian national zoological park website.i’m quite sure you didn’t have to look up 2 sources for a translation of bear so stuff you’re “inner scientist” because my “inner philosopher” is telling me you’re one of those who fall for the delusion of the democratic fallacy (look that one up)i can’t believe i’m argueing on an expert village video, what a joke.
Of course I didn’t look up two sources for a translation of bear. I looked up two sources for information on pandas in general.And philosophers are nothing but idiots who think they can explain things without evidence.No need to look up democratic fallacy, and I can also say that having more than one source of information is not the same as ‘truth by majority opinion’If arguing on an expert village video is so demeaning to you, why has it taken you over a week to figure it out?
philosophers are only idiots are they? philosophy tackles our ideals and is the driving force behind social development… the ONLY driving force behind social development.you see wikipedia (an internet encyclopedia) as opinionated and inaccurate…I could argue the same for any page on the internet based on the same arguement and THEREFORE I could argue you are using the democratic fallacy.philosophers don’t claim to be able to explain everything.you chose to argue.
Philosophy is not the ONLY driving force behind social development. It is simply one of many tools that do so. And I never said wikipedia was opinionated or inaccurate. I’m sure the vast majority of it is highly accurate. I am just pointing out that there is a higher chance of something being wrong on wikipedia than some other credible source, because of the way they gather their information.And you cannot use the same argument about any other web page because you have no evidence of it.