Wikipedia write up on Anabolic Steroids

[CaptainCalves]

What up peeps!

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_steroids

Its a really awesome, and fair write up on AAS.

Check it out.

[InsaneInTheMembrane]

"Anabolic steroid users often are stereotyped as uneducated "muscle heads" by popular media and culture; however, a 1998 study on steroid users showed them to be the most educated drug users out of all users of controlled substances"

It's about time someone said that...AMEN!

cheers

[CaptainCalves]

"Anabolic steroid users often are stereotyped as uneducated "muscle heads" by popular media and culture; however, a 1998 study on steroid users showed them to be the most educated drug users out of all users of controlled substances"

It's about time someone said that...AMEN!

cheers

AMEN Brother!! Yeh, I completely agree!! AAS can NOT be compared to a recreational/narcotic drug!!! AAS and AAS users are different to coke heads in EVERY way!!

[in_nujerz]

Without a doubt did anyone ever hear people speaking about a way to re4duce side effects for anythin or doin any research

[nyjetsfan86]

wikipedia's information is not legit its all info that people share and isnt accurate

[CaptainCalves]

wikipedia's information is not legit its all info that people share and isnt accurate

How can you justify that statement??

[nyjetsfan86]

for starters its called wikipedia the free encylopedia that anyone can edit, go to the wikipedia website and click "about" and it tells you that its a collabrative website that anyone can add information to with over 75,000 contributors and you dont need specialized qualifications to contribute

[CaptainCalves]

for starters its called wikipedia the free encylopedia that anyone can edit, go to the wikipedia website and click "about" and it tells you that its a collabrative website that anyone can add information to with over 75,000 contributors and you dont need specialized qualifications to contribute

Even if that is true, then it supports the validity even more, because it is NOT only one persons point of view, but 1000's of people's experiences and results.

What exactly is your point?? Are you saying that the contents of the article are incorrect??

[Njord]

Even if that is true, then it supports the validity even more, because it is NOT only one persons point of view, but 1000's of people's experiences and results.

What exactly is your point?? Are you saying that the contents of the article are incorrect??

He is saying that anybody can write whatever they want about anything and post it on wikipedia. I use wikipedia, but I always cross-reference the information I get with other sources.
As a matter of fact, you can go into that page on wikipedia and edit if you want.

[CaptainCalves]

Yeh, that means that people who are against AAS are also allowed to add/edit Wikipedia info.

[Kale]

I do believe that wikipedia is actually edited for correct content these days. I remember reading something about that recently

[nyjetsfan86]

its edited if you dont list your refences, but the refrences are not always reliable either, i did not read the whole article about steroids on wikepedia and im not saying the article is wrong/right im just saying dont believe everything on there because its not a great source of information granted im sure some of the information is great but not all of it

[CaptainCalves]

its edited if you dont list your refences, but the refrences are not always reliable either, i did not read the whole article about steroids on wikepedia and im not saying the article is wrong/right im just saying dont believe everything on there because its not a great source of information granted im sure some of the information is great but not all of it

Yeh, I hear what you are saying. I'll remember that in future.

I especially like the 'Common Misconceptions' section!! Represent!!

[Alex Rodriguez]

wikipedia's information is not legit its all info that people share and isnt accurate

not really it's been shown thats its only 4% less accurate then the encyclopedia of britannica

[Panzerfaust80]

not really it's been shown thats its only 4% less accurate then the encyclopedia of britannica

lol funny alex. I read sumwhere its 5.6% less accurate. hey whos that in ur avy looks like bill gates with long hair! lol


Oh by the way mods dosent this belong in the LOUNGE?

sorry if my shit gets moved everyones shit is getting moved

lol

[nyjetsfan86]

i heard 60% of the time it works everytime

[PurplePatriot]

im sorry but id much rather listen to advice on steroid i hear on this board than I would from a doctor. Guys on this board have more lab time and test results of their own that your average doctor would have in his lifetime. Yes the doctor is a smart guy, but spending all his time studying steroids isnt going to help him out in giving out expensive prescriptions. My point? Wikipedia FTW. read the material... dont be stupid... the material selected is not just random BS, wikipedia is smarter than that. Just because someone doesnt have PHD or nobel prize does not mean their information cannot be 10x more accurate. Wikipedia is as legit as any encyclopedia out there.

[Panzerfaust80]

Yeah wiki is 100% true 76.43% of the time.

[kaberle_15]

Yeah wiki is 100% true 76.43% of the time.

That just doesn't make sense, stings the nostrils

[lex57]

i agree with nyjets..... its ok for a tool. but i wouldnt trust it. because like they have said anyone can contribute anything. just like when someone on wiki said SINBAD was dead they put the day he died and everything.....kinda funny actually. is he dead? ..... anyways you get the point. gotta be careful but i like the fact about edumacated drug users....