213374U

Of course! please allow me to correct my previous statement by adding propaganda to the list of similarities to your comparison to Munich Agreement, on top of Putin's Authoritarian rule, his foreign policy and irredentism under pretext of protecting Russians ... Of course! Anything that isn't on Wikipedia or otherwise doesn't agree with your views is "propaganda"! Even if it is in a Wikipedia citation! And of course, the first "I'm Feeling Lucky" Google results that you copypaste without even fully reading are to be considered pearls of wisdom so clear that they would leave the ****ing Dalai Lama gaping vapidly! But of course!

Oh, right, sorry. You are right, unsupported overhead presses are a perfectly good substitute for military and Arnold presses. They are an awesome shoulder exercise all around. They are still anterior delt-heavy, however. If you are worried about the effectiveness of lateral raises, take a look at this. Skip the mumbo-jumbo (or not, it's actually good stuff) and go straight to the EMG chart. Sensations can be misleading sometimes. I also would recommend you try dumbbells instead of a bar for the upright rows, because they allow you to adjust your degree of pronation better (shoulder internal rotation affects rotator cuff disposition and compression), but your call. I'm unfamiliar with this kind of exercise regime, but it sounds very interesting, how long are you planning to perform this peak strength exercise plan? And how long are you resting between the sets? It's a rather basic, powerlifting inspired routine. Think Rippetoe's 5x5, but with a bit more flair (pyramid sets, for instance). Rest periods are upwards of 2 minutes, which can make it sorta boring. Owing to the low rep volumes (5 tops) and long rest periods I don't get a pump or walk out especially tired, which makes me wonder often what am I doing with my life, but the results are good. I haven't yet managed to beat the PBs that I set last time I finished a peak strength cycle. Need to find a way to maintain cardio fitness, though.

What are you talking about. Which countries in southern Europe have a population that is >60% "African"? (no such ethnicity, language or common ancestry btw) I guess some Russian republics could push for independence on an ethnic basis (Caucasus republics, Tatarstan), but really not on a historic one because those have been Russian lands since the 17th century. Moreover, Russia has not turned against non-Russian ethnicities residing within their territory by couping its own democratically elected government and enacting a ban on the use of languages other than Russian. This is the issue that kickstarted the whole secession deal, remember? And there is 60% of population russian in Ukraine? No only in one part, its like part of Paris become independed because there is African mayority in that PART What part of Paris has an overwhelming majority of "African" population? Again, no such ethnicity so the, erm, argument falls flat at this point. But are you seriously suggesting that a neighborhood with no historical claim on independence nor a homogeneous ethnic composition or consolidated political identity is the same as Crimea? Seriously, what?

Nah, nothing to do with rigour, simply a way to make it clear what exactly you are referring to in order to avoid misunderstandings and to give other posters a fair chance at defending their arguments. Making vague comments about "other people" can simply be an expeditious way to shift the goal posts. Of course, this is an informal discussion, so you don't have to do anything, but to me it's simply common courtesy.

No. You are suggesting Putin needs to wait until there is a referendum in Crimea. And if there were indications that that's where the situation is headed, I'd agree. However, it's abundantly clear by the way the putsch has been carried out in Kiev that they intend to do no such thing. So, by your logic Putin should wait until something that will never happen, happens, while at the same time letting Russian strategic interests be put at risk in addition to only respecting the parts of international law the west tells him to? And read up on the 1st Chechen War. Russia did not outright invade after independence was declared from the Soviet Union (not Russia). There was a civil war in Chechnya prior to Russian intervention that caused a massive exodus of Russians from Chechnya, that is what triggered the Russian invasion. No, the fundamental difference is that Putin is reacting to the fascist putsch in Ukraine and, until proven otherwise, he has no ambitions of annexing parts of Ukraine or other ex-Soviet republics to restore an anachronistic sense of national or ethnic pride. Irredentism? Where?

What are you talking about. Which countries in southern Europe have a population that is >60% "African"? (no such ethnicity, language or common ancestry btw) I guess some Russian republics could push for independence on an ethnic basis (Caucasus republics, Tatarstan), but really not on a historic one because those have been Russian lands since the 17th century. Moreover, Russia has not turned against non-Russian ethnicities residing within their territory by couping its own democratically elected government and enacting a ban on the use of languages other than Russian. This is the issue that kickstarted the whole secession deal, remember?

I know this notion may sound radical, but... women generally have first-hand experience of what women experience. I'll step even further: women working in STEM fields may know better what the women who work in STEM fields experience! Who would have thought! I didn't dismiss their experiences. The way they interpret these experiences relative to themselves and the way they relate that to others is what is suspect. You are making the choice to place more value on the experiences of women as related by women, because they are women, than experiences of men as related by men, because they are men. "Entitlement issue-laden nerd-boys" is a frankly disparaging term, but for some reason much more acceptable than referring to women not wanting to work in high-stress, highly competitive male-dominated environments as duplicitous arrivistes with deep-seated insecurity issues that prevent them from clicking in with the established work ethic. See what I did there?

Uh-huh. You were addressing some unspecified "above" arguments. The post above yours (until oby's posts were approved and appeared magically in between) was dealing specifically with Crimean self-determination. That you spin the issue to disregard the opinions of Crimeans to make it exclusively about Vlad getting his way, does not mean the matter in question is actually about that. Who are "the people" happy to pull a Chamberlain? Because Rostere has explicitly mentioned a referendum, i.e. very much not a Chamberlain scenario. Quote them directly and get your hands dirty instead of burning down strawmen with passive-aggresive remarks. I wasn't trying to paint you as a hypocrite before, but come think of it, you can be a hypocrite by inaction, or rather, by selective action. So there.

Depends on the field, I guess. Most females I know who went into CS, however, tend to complain. Anecdotical evidence, I know, but I'm prone to valuing women's accounts about things experienced by females more than dudes telling me How Things Are In The Real World. Because females are completely impartial, uninvolved and free of issues by virtue of being female. Sounds legit.

Any gesture that requires your humerus to tilt forward in a sagittal plane (shoulder flexion) against a resistance is going to recruit your "anterior" delts. I'm using quotation marks because muscular isolation is somewhat of a myth—forces are transmitted by connective tissue (tendons, fasciae) and muscle portions are much less well defined IRL than they are in anatomy treatises. Deltoid "portions" can be as few as 3 and as many as 7 depending on the author. Also, there are ~20 muscles involved with that motion. Which one are you working? The way to shift part of the burden to the "lateral" portion is by reducing the mechanical advantage of the anterior portion that is naturally stronger and forcing the body to find a more convenient solution. You can do this by making the movement happen in the frontal plane (dumbbell lateral raise) and/or increasing shoulder internal rotation (upright rows). Problem with messing around with rotation is that it reduces effective ROM and if your rotator cuff and especially scapular stabilizers aren't up to snuff, it's not going to be very effective and "automatic" involuntary compensations can cause problems long-term (shoulder impingement, tendonitis...). Overhead pressing is kinda redundant if you are already doing military and Arnold presses. I would try lateral raises first (I've seen your upper traps, try to minimize assistance from them), and then lying rear raises. Me, I'm running a 5-week peak strength period. Low rep sets, average volume, loads up to 80% of 1RM, long rests, deadlift/squat/bench press-centered with a bit of supplementary work throw in for good measure. And it's only a 3-4 day/week program. It's driving me up the wall...

Nope, they've been conditioned to believe that "girls aren't good at math", which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Socially inept and entitlement issue-laden nerd boys create a workspace where many women feel uncomfortable. If you don't believe me, ask any woman working in those fields. Implication that there is a relationship between sex and personality issues and social skills development. What you did there. I see it.

I'm now regretting making the comparison to the Munich Agreement. I made it in the sense that the west may end up just handing the land to Russia because the alternative is unthinkable and the original owner doesn't have enough political clout to resist on her own. The similarities end there. Of course, I should have foreseen that any references to Hitler's foreign policy would immediately trigger the atavistic fears of Nazi military expansionism given shape by hindsight and dilute any factual value that a comparison could have. What exactly do you find unacceptable about asking the people of Crimea what would they prefer? Let's assume a OSCE-supervised polling scenario, here. Because otherwise, the alternative would have to be putting Yanukovych back in power and going by the terms established in the agreement that was to end the Maidan protests, until elections were held no later than december. You cannot have only one side abide by "international law". Also, reminder that WWII was precipitated by the Allies' snap-border redrawing after WWI as much as it was by Hitler's personal insanity/delusions/egomania. Hitler was aware that his initial demands made sense from a historical and ethnic point of view and played that and the reluctance of the Allies to go for a rematch to obtain a huge initial edge. This is in relation to your comment about "divvying countries up according to random perceptions". It's A-OK when we do it (border drawing in Africa), but not when anyone else does, unless it's to our advantage somehow. (can I be the "Powerhungry Demagogue of the Obsidian Order"?)

I guess you'd have to clarify what you mean by "reasonable", but pending that, the comment is off the mark in my experience. Catalonia, where the push for independence is more politically solid, is mostly "meh" about the issue, as illustrated by the low turnout of the unofficial town "referendums" conducted in the past five years or so. They will only rally to the independence cause if somebody makes a point of telling them that they do not actually have a right to be independent. In the Basque Country, actual independentism is more a politicized topic that parties love to trump up than an actual issue for people (Euskera is a difficult language and is still very much minoritary). Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for giving people the political freedom to secede—something that is not present in the current Spanish Constitution—but you should not mistake the propaganda efforts of a bunch of loud-mouthed corrupt buffoons for the actual will of the people.

Haha, I hate when that happens!

Fighting secessionists is imperialism ? Oh, come on. You know there is no single answer to that and that it's a matter of historical perspective—and history is written by the winners. Were the British being imperialists by fighting the armies raised by the Continental Congress? Were the French being imperialists by fighting the Algerians? etc. The secret of politics? Make a good treaty with Russia. — Otto von Bismarck Won't be surprised to find that she's a fan.

Oh, I don't know. How about leading by example? "Authority"? What authority do you have over anyone?

Really? How many people die in the US of "extremist" attacks yearly? And how many just die of gunshot wounds? Please explain to me how exactly extremism is the bigger threat. What in the world are you talking about? edit: I guess if you want to just address the wounds, we can discuss a skin treatment plan that makes us bulletproof? Seriously though, what in the world are you talking about again? Yeah, nevermind me. I'm in a total read fail-mode this afternoon. I apparently missed the "this means nothing with regards to gun control" part. Time for a time out. Herpity derpity doo.

Really? How many people die in the US of "extremist" attacks yearly? And how many just die of gunshot wounds? Please explain to me how exactly extremism is the bigger threat.

Increase what? Looks like you are plenty active already. You have any particular goals you are working towards or...? edit: oh sorry, I re-read. With your current level of activity, you are probably just going to have to cut back on calories. You could theoretically keep increasing energy demands (HIIT, plyometrics...) but there comes a point where you are just pushing too hard and there's a price for everything. Changing the relation between fats/carbs/protein to favor the latter two to the detriment of the former will probably yield results fairly quickly for someone so active. From what I've read also it seems that the lion's share of the fat burning efect from EPOC is due to the body's adaptive and repair processes, so spicing up things a bit in the weight room may also be to your advantage if you've been doing more or less the same things for a while.

<image deleted> Leaving the international community (read: the US and her proconsuls) to deal with a fait accompli that's achieved without bloodshed and with, at the very least, acquiescence of the locals may be less risky than letting "diplomacy" run its course and then defying everyone by applying force anyway if the backroom dealing doesn't go their way. As you said, I can't see anyone being thrilled at the perspective of having to dislodge the Russians from Crimea and eastern Ukraine. We may be looking at Munich Agreement Redux, depending how things play out. Not really new means, and I'm not sure the comparison is fair. Plurinational countries don't exactly have a stellar track record of success and stability throughout history, and breakup after an uneasy while is the usual outcome. Also Crimea had been a part of Russia for longer than (modern) Ukraine has existed, so it's not surprising that the majoritarian ethnic group is Russians. This is not Russians coming into Crimea in the past 20 years and voting for secession after completely changing the demographic composition of the peninsula. Looks like you are trying to establish a parallel between Russians in Ukraine and immigrants in Europe, but it's a bit of a stretch.

I don't know about the British Army, but in my experience standard-issue boots are murder on the feet if you need to do any actual ground stomping in them. Non-standard issue is not surprising here. The degree of gear customization seems to increase the more "elite" a unit is. As for Stalin's russification of Crimea, I'm not so sure. Crimea has been part of Russia since the 18th century and there were already large amounts of ethnic Russians by then. Soviet russification policies are infamous, but the Soviets didn't actually invent them. And with regards to your subsequent comment on Obama's inaction, I'm actually more inclined to believe that US Prezs are more likely to embark on a war when they have nothing to lose politically, i.e. near the end of their second term. What with the general public opinion against more wars and all. I doubt the rest of NATO would be happy to issue a DOW on Russia over this, either. As I said, at this point it's a strategic defeat for Russia anyway and I don't see how they could salvage the situation. Even reclaiming Crimea "for the Motherland!" wouldn't make up for the loss of Ukraine as a partner.

Wouldn't be surprised if the net result of this were Crimea ending up like Transnistria.

I thought you said that having served had made you view all women as sexually acceptable. Even the really trashy ones!

Well, yes.

That's... an interesting view. The absence of a central figure of authority having absolute power, instead being distributed among a myriad elected and unelected officials and private sector bigwigs may indeed be "balanced" in a strict sense. But it's decidedly undemocratic, and the results are manifestly terrible—widespread waste, reduction of civil liberties, inequality increases and perpetual war. And all in the name of greed.