The Bogosity Forum

General Bogosity => The Podcast => Topic started by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2015, 04:00:19 PM

Title: Podcast for 12 January 2015
Post by: MrBogosity on January 11, 2015, 04:00:19 PM
[mp3]http://podcast.bogosity.tv/mp3s/BogosityPodcast-2015-01-12.mp3[/mp3]


Co-Host: Jonathan Loesche

News of the Bogus:
25:28 - Biggest Bogon Emitter: Harvard professors http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/06/us/health-care-fixes-backed-by-harvards-experts-now-roil-its-faculty.html
31:43 - Idiot Extraordinaire: The British Advertising Standards Authority http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/06/uk-censors-mind-the-thigh-gap

This Week's Quote: "Heightened self-consciousness, apartness, an inability to join in, physical shame and self-loathing—they are not all bad. Those devils have been my angels. Without them I would never have disappeared into language, literature, the mind, laughter and all the mad intensities that made and unmade me." —Stephen Fry
Title: Re: Podcast for 12 January 2015
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 11, 2015, 04:12:20 PM
On the BBE, really the first two paragraphs of that article says it all:
"WASHINGTON — For years, Harvard's experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.

Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed."

Hey, you ivory tower twats helped design this crap, what's the matter, don't you want some of it too?  Really, the fact that the folks who helped design it don't want a damn thing to do with it and admit it actually raises costs of healthcare speaks volumes about it.
Title: Re: Podcast for 12 January 2015
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 11, 2015, 04:16:06 PM
Who was the co-hosts?
Title: Re: Podcast for 12 January 2015
Post by: Travis Retriever on January 11, 2015, 04:38:36 PM
@this week's IE:  Oh, they'd HATE people like Nina Ross:
https://www.facebook.com/NinaRossFitness/photos/a.530662023679323.1073741825.352540358158158/770952816316908
She's proof that the "curves = fat" cliche' is bogus.  Muscles are the engine of strength and strength creates curves, as Bret Contreras and Menno Henselmans would say. :)

Makes me wonder how folks like Reg Park or John Grimek factor in.  The latter was about 5'8.5", but because of his amazing bodybuilding genetics, had a contest weight of about 210 @ roughly 10% body fat, with 18+ inched lean muscular arms.  His freakishly large frame size of 8 inched wrists and 9.9 inches ankles certainly helped.  For sake of comparison, the average for someone of his height would be:  7.16 inched wrists and 8.88 inched ankles.

The former, was a beast.  One of the most massively musucled and strongest drug free men who ever lived.
He clocked in at about 235 lbs @ roughly 10% body fat with a height of 6'1" and with arms as large as 19 inches in the off season (!), with 8 inched wrists and 9.5 inched ankles (average for his height being 7.63 inched wrists and 9.46 inched ankles).  He gained something like 25 lbs of muscle in his first 10 months of training.  Seriously, Google around for pics of him at that age.  He looks more muscular after 10 months of training that most guys look after 10 years of weight training!

Yet they both had BMIs of 31.1 for Park and 31.5 for Grimek in their primes.  Despite it being muscle, according to BMI and govco, they're walking cheese-steaks!
And these guys were in their prime before steroids ever entered into bodybuilding, so the retort of it being used to find drug users in this case just doesn't hold water.
Title: Re: Podcast for 12 January 2015
Post by: evensgrey on January 12, 2015, 08:49:03 AM
Shane, you mangled an expression in a way that doesn't make any sense.

A petard was a pot of gun powder that was used to breach a gate by carrying it up to the gate, hammering a spike into it, hanging the petard on the spike, lighting the fuse, and running like hell to get far enough away before it exploded (all while enduring any combination of arrows, rocks, shit, rotten food, burning oil, baked sand, and in extreme cases, furniture and bits off the top of the wall).  Failing the last part resulted in the man using it (often the siege engineer all of whose siege engines had failed to do the job) being "hoist by his own petard" when the blast sent him flying.  Talking about hoisting a petard doesn't make sense unless you're talking about running the Renaissance equivalent of a satchel charge up a flagpole.
Title: Re: Podcast for 12 January 2015
Post by: MrBogosity on January 12, 2015, 11:41:17 AM
Quote from: evensgrey on January 12, 2015, 08:49:03 AM
Shane, you mangled an expression in a way that doesn't make any sense.

Which is largely the point of those little intros. Yes, I know what a petard was; it was deliberate.