What exactly IS a Steroidloo?

**thisAngelBites** · 05-08-2015, 12:35 PM

It must be either of:

a) the bathroom where you take your AAS, or

b) the toilet where you flush your AAS when the constabulary are knocking at the door.

**Joco71** · 05-08-2015, 12:37 PM

All of the above...LOL

**-Ender-** · 05-08-2015, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by thisAngelBites

It must be either of:

a) the bathroom where you take your AAS, or

b) the toilet where you flush your AAS when the constabulary are knocking at the door.

My guess is that it was a failed attempt to liken a forum debate to the battle of Waterloo.
Again another misguided notion that there is any importance to the discussion, or to the scale of one of the opponents.

**jimmyinkedup** · 05-08-2015, 01:08 PM

The more appropriate question may be WHERE is Steroidloo?
Is it some made up fantasy location in the mind of a delusional AAS user that suffers from Napoleon complex or is it an actual real world location? My money is on the former to be sure.

**thisAngelBites** · 05-08-2015, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by -Ender-

My guess is that it was a failed attempt to liken a forum debate to the battle of Waterloo.
Again another misguided notion that there is any importance to the discussion, or to the scale of one of the opponents.

Well done, Ender! The Waterloo reference was completely lost on me! I should have realised that after the Napoleon/Prussian/Etc. reference. I just couldn't stop being fixated on why he was talking about the loo.

Thanks for bringing this little bit of closure to my nerdy brain.

**-Ender-** · 05-08-2015, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by thisAngelBites

Well done, Ender! The Waterloo reference was completely lost on me! I should have realised that after the Napoleon/Prussian/Etc. reference. I just couldn't stop being fixated on why he was talking about the loo.

Thanks for bringing this little bit of closure to my nerdy brain.

You are welcome, anytime.

What had me baffled was why he picked the name of a battle that his hero LOST??

**RaginCajun** · 05-08-2015, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by -Ender-

You are welcome, anytime.

What had me baffled was why he picked the name of a battle that his hero LOST??

Oh the irony!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**thisAngelBites** · 05-08-2015, 02:39 PM

I thought the same (about Napoleon losing at Waterloo). Not a good start.

**almostgone** · 05-08-2015, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by -Ender-

You are welcome, anytime.

What had me baffled was why he picked the name of a battle that his hero LOST??

LMAO, that is pretty poor reasoning on his part..UNLESS he has come to terms with the fact he is a born loser?

**Euroholic** · 05-08-2015, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by -Ender-

You are welcome, anytime.

What had me baffled was why he picked the name of a battle that his hero LOST??

He must be this bloke

Battle Of Waterloo: Mini Model Of Crucial Day

Napoleon made so many tactical blunders. He split his forces days before when he was trying to chase down the prussians who ended up eluding them and joining the battle. He waited till midday to launch his attack which gave the time for the prussians to march and join the battle in the late afternoon. He was so focussed with the prussians on his flank that he missed a opportunity to advance in the centre of his line which gave the english time to reorganize there positions then the english and prussians attacked and the french left the field in a disorganized retreat

**JohnnyJim** · 05-08-2015, 03:31 PM

I'm on break right now but I have to get back to work soon. I'll deal with this after work.

Napoleon is God.

**NACH3** · 05-08-2015, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by johnnyjim

i'm on break right now but i have to get back to work soon. I'll deal with this after work.

Napoleon is god.

edit*** sigh!

**thisAngelBites** · 05-08-2015, 03:53 PM

Oh christ. Well, I guess that's more interesting than arguing for Machiavelli.

**Euroholic** · 05-08-2015, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by NACH3

Originally Posted by JohnnyJim

I'm on break right now but I have to get back to work soon. I'll deal with this after work.

Napoleon is God.

EDIT*** SIGH!

Seamen on the leg?

**JohnnyJim** · 05-08-2015, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by thisAngelBites

Oh christ. Well, I guess that's more interesting than arguing for Machiavelli.

Believe it or not, Marcus300 is very Machiavellian.

He shows me no mercy so he can preserve his reputation as Steroid King.

It's a means to an end, and I completely understand.

**JohnnyJim** · 05-08-2015, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Euroholic

He must be this bloke

Battle Of Waterloo: Mini Model Of Crucial Day

Napoleon made so many tactical blunders. He split his forces days before when he was trying to chase down the prussians who ended up eluding them and joining the battle. He waited till midday to launch his attack which gave the time for the prussians to march and join the battle in the late afternoon. He was so focussed with the prussians on his flank that he missed a opportunity to advance in the centre of his line which gave the english time to reorganize there positions then the english and prussians attacked and the french left the field in a disorganized retreat

Bottom line is that Marcus's grand dad needed the help of 3 other countries in order to beat one man.

That's like saying that Marcus and Ender are both stronger than Taranenko because they can clean and jerk 300 pounds, thereby totaling 600...

**GirlyGymRat** · 05-08-2015, 09:45 PM

Where u the member who pm me asking for pictures a few weeks ago? Or asked me if I was good enough to be your girlfriend? Maybe I haven't confused with another members. In any event.

Please don't pm me!

**thisAngelBites** · 05-09-2015, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by JohnnyJim

Believe it or not, Marcus300 is very Machiavellian.

He shows me no mercy so he can preserve his reputation as Steroid King.

It's a means to an end, and I completely understand.

I think you profoundly misunderstand Machiavelli, or else your understanding of him comes from other people who profoundly misunderstand - perhaps television writers?

Machiavelli's discussions of power were concerning the political realm. He wasn't talking about one person's physical power over another, he was talking about coercion and its relationship to political power. The Prince was an argument against what was a popular idea in the political and philosophical literature before him, namely, that one must differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate authority (the former being "good" and the latter being "bad"). Machiavelli argues that there is no such thing as legitimate authority and that all rulers rely on the fear of coercion and punishment in order to acquire and retain power. Recall (if you have read the book) that he gives prescriptive advice to the populace as to how to overthrow rulers.

If you were to then go on to read The Discourses you would find Machiavelli praising the hereditary monarchy in France as the greatest in the world due to its much heavier reliance on laws than any other monarchy. It had a parliament which largely checked the power of the monarch - because what Machiavelli really valued was republican forms of government and liberty (vivero securo and vivero libero in Italian - which he speaks of over and over, the free life and the secure life) and France was the only government he knew that approached that.

To read The Prince literally as a volume recommending cruel and incompassionate ruling basically means that Machiavelli's two major works plainly contradict each other.

Now, maybe you're just saying that Marcus behaves like The Prince in the book, but that's pretty silly. This is just a website and no one has any real power over anyone else.

**Venom** · 05-09-2015, 04:08 AM

Marcus is the man

**Honkey_Kong** · 05-09-2015, 05:13 AM

Hey, that Steroidloo thread had a lot of similarities to Waterloo.

A wimpy dude with a Napoleon complex picks a fight and gets beaten mercilessly. Sounds like Waterloo to me.

**tarmyg** · 05-09-2015, 08:28 AM

Originally Posted by thisAngelBites

I think you profoundly misunderstand Machiavelli, or else your understanding of him comes from other people who profoundly misunderstand - perhaps television writers?

Machiavelli's discussions of power were concerning the political realm. He wasn't talking about one person's physical power over another, he was talking about coercion and its relationship to political power. The Prince was an argument against what was a popular idea in the political and philosophical literature before him, namely, that one must differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate authority (the former being "good" and the latter being "bad"). Machiavelli argues that there is no such thing as legitimate authority and that all rulers rely on the fear of coercion and punishment in order to acquire and retain power. Recall (if you have read the book) that he gives prescriptive advice to the populace as to how to overthrow rulers.

If you were to then go on to read The Discourses you would find Machiavelli praising the hereditary monarchy in France as the greatest in the world due to its much heavier reliance on laws than any other monarchy. It had a parliament which largely checked the power of the monarch - because what Machiavelli really valued was republican forms of government and liberty (vivero securo and vivero libero in Italian - which he speaks of over and over, the free life and the secure life) and France was the only government he knew that approached that.

To read The Prince literally as a volume recommending cruel and incompassionate ruling basically means that Machiavelli's two major works plainly contradict each other.

Now, maybe you're just saying that Marcus behaves like The Prince in the book, but that's pretty silly. This is just a website and no one has any real power over anyone else.

I am in love :-)

**marcus300** · 05-09-2015, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by JohnnyJim

Bottom line is that Marcus's grand dad needed the help of 3 other countries in order to beat one man.

That's like saying that Marcus and Ender are both stronger than Taranenko because they can clean and jerk 300 pounds, thereby totaling 600...

Originally Posted by thisAngelBites

I think you profoundly misunderstand Machiavelli, or else your understanding of him comes from other people who profoundly misunderstand - perhaps television writers?

Machiavelli's discussions of power were concerning the political realm. He wasn't talking about one person's physical power over another, he was talking about coercion and its relationship to political power. The Prince was an argument against what was a popular idea in the political and philosophical literature before him, namely, that one must differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate authority (the former being "good" and the latter being "bad"). Machiavelli argues that there is no such thing as legitimate authority and that all rulers rely on the fear of coercion and punishment in order to acquire and retain power. Recall (if you have read the book) that he gives prescriptive advice to the populace as to how to overthrow rulers.

If you were to then go on to read The Discourses you would find Machiavelli praising the hereditary monarchy in France as the greatest in the world due to its much heavier reliance on laws than any other monarchy. It had a parliament which largely checked the power of the monarch - because what Machiavelli really valued was republican forms of government and liberty (vivero securo and vivero libero in Italian - which he speaks of over and over, the free life and the secure life) and France was the only government he knew that approached that.

To read The Prince literally as a volume recommending cruel and incompassionate ruling basically means that Machiavelli's two major works plainly contradict each other.

Now, maybe you're just saying that Marcus behaves like The Prince in the book, but that's pretty silly. This is just a website and no one has any real power over anyone else.

Johnny, I think a lovely young girl just took you to school and showed you your arse lol

**NACH3** · 05-09-2015, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by marcus300

Johnny, I think a lovely young girl just took you to school and showed you your arse lol

She most definitely did! Lol

And a true Napolean Complex for sure(typical on here - behind a screen)! Lmao

**thisAngelBites** · 05-17-2015, 04:14 PM

Oh forgodsake. Fine, it's late and all my stuff is done, even though you would think I would have long learnt my lesson about having any discussion like this here, but apparently not. Anyone else who isn't JohnnyJim probably should not bother reading this.

Confidence is important, yes, but I can have all the confidence in the world that I am going bench press 10,000 pounds, and newflash: it's not going to happen. I can have all the confidence that I am going to work towards benching 10,000 and achieve it, and it's still not going to happen. And Machiavelli wasn't talking about confidence. At one point in the book he says that men imagine they are competent, but they are not because they struggle and lose. 'Imagine they are competent' sounds a lot like confidence to me.

But before I get into that, what exactly do you think the purpose is of taking a sentence out of a book and thinking you can make a whole case about what an author meant? I had a professor that ridiculed that when I was a first year undergraduate. "Don't try and rely on some sentence in a book that seems to contradict something else the author said, or seems to be problematic taken on its own." he said. He went on to advise that we read the whole work and make the strongest case you can for the author's claim, and then argue with THAT if you want to say something worth saying.

The sentence you chose, and then more or less stated was a metaphor, is completely applicable to politics, read in the context of the book in which it appears. He is describing here (as he does in many other places in the book) how good leaders get and hold on to power.

Machiavelli has spent a lot of time in The Prince analysing fortuna, which is usually translated as "fortune" (as in luck) but is used very loosely in the book to mean all manner of things that cannot be controlled. He emphasises that princes who rely on fortune often lose power when fortune changes, and then spends a lot of time describing what a prince is like who can hold on to his power. This quote is one of several ways that he thinks princes hold on to power in spite of things they cannot control. You will have read passages where he talks about the necessity of princes being careful, analysing things and planning all the time. In the quote you chose he is also talking about being rash at times. In short, he is making the case for a prince who is adaptable enough to be cautious when necessary, and to be rash and bold when the situation calls for it. So he doesn't think daring men are the ones who get somewhere in life (and indeed, he is too smart to make such a facile claim). Princes who know when it is good time to be daring, and are daring at that proper time are the ones who hold on to their power. That's what Machiavelli was saying.

**thisAngelBites** · 05-17-2015, 04:16 PM

PS - I think it is against the rules to have more than one user account on this site.

**GirlyGymRat** · 05-19-2015, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Explosive

Yeah. I'm trying to fix that... I just find it really weird how my password suddenly stopped working...

Did u get a suspension???

**thisAngelBites** · 05-20-2015, 01:00 AM

I'm sincerely sorry, but I am not going to carry on educating you about Machiavelli or any other philosopher. If you cannot see that you have read one book, and are attempting to universalise that one tiny piece of information when Machiavelli was taking part in an enormous cultural and historical conversation about politics that encompasses so many things that you overlook and don't know, then that's your choice.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.... The world is full of books with good thinking - you can avail yourself of them any time you like. I am not the University of Angel.

But I do suggest you knock off the juvenile bravado and challenges for the throne or whatever your fantasy is. Since you're so enamored with Machiavelli, take a page out of his book and exercise some prudence. This is a forum and not a principality.

Originally Posted by Explosive

Out of memory, here is a paraphrase from The Prince...

It's cool to be a goody-two-shoes. People love goody-two-shoed people. But love is an unstable emotion. And as with all things unstable, you cannot control. Therefore, threaten to cut off people's dicks so you control them through fear instead. And as people are base, self-centered, and selfish, you can rest assure that they will only obey, never rebel, if you are the one who decides who's genitals remain non-mutilated.

You merely said something that all educated people, such as you and me, already know. And that is, Machiavelli's true essence wasn't Ends Justify Means, but Prudence is Key to Success.

And also... the last time that I had such a lengthy philosophical discussion was with my 60-year old English teacher. She was a woman, I give her that, but her age and wisdom covered up whatever youthful femininity she once had.

You, on the other hand, are a 21-year old Ivy Leaguer who's trying to keep up with a MAN of my caliber. What's going on? Would you like to talk to me through PM?

**marcus300** · 05-20-2015, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by thisAngelBites

I'm sincerely sorry, but I am not going to carry on educating you about Machiavelli or any other philosopher. If you cannot see that you have read one book, and are attempting to universalise that one tiny piece of information when Machiavelli was taking part in an enormous cultural and historical conversation about politics that encompasses so many things that you overlook and don't know, then that's your choice.

As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water.... The world is full of books with good thinking - you can avail yourself of them any time you like. I am not the University of Angel.

But I do suggest you knock off the juvenile bravado and challenges for the throne or whatever your fantasy is. Since you're so enamored with Machiavelli, take a page out of his book and exercise some prudence. This is a forum and not a principality.

Yet again he gets spanked lol,,,,,,,kids trying to be something there are not lol

Angel take them to school and spanks them

**thisAngelBites** · 05-20-2015, 12:52 PM

Uh oh. Looks like a tragic end for JohnnyJim/Explosive.

Explosive said:
>who's trying to keep up with a MAN of my caliber. What's going on? Would you like to talk to me through PM?

I guess you think that all that commentary I made concerning Machiavelli was some freakazoidal foreplay, and that I secretly want to sex you up.