Help me argue with my professor

Yanick · 04-16-2006, 06:19 PM

My kinesiology professor is a pretty cool lady, knows her stuff, or atleast it seems like she does. Her one downside is she is one of those "oly lifts are dangerous and not necessary, 1 set per exercise is enough stimulation" etc. She reminds me of those Super Slow/HIT trainers. We got into a discussion about oly lifts (some guy asked about upright rowing the barbell up during cleans, and i had to correct him obviously

) She started telling the class about studies etc that say you don't need more than 1 set to stimulate a muscle and that oly lifts are dangerous with little to no positive returns. so i promised her that i would bring her some abstracts/studies to look at, so hopefully she'll get her head out of the sand and into the real world.

i remember Pat posted a bunch of stuff on oly lifting but i can't find it, and i remember waaaay back when, Dr. Pain used to say stuff like per x amount of hours of exercise oly lifters show less injuries than bodybuilders and powerlifters.

so if anyone can hook me up with some scientific evidence to back up my case i'll be a happy camper...i'll be looking around and if i find something of interest i'll be sure to post up here for all to see and critique. the only thing i ask is that the posts are scientific and not just articles by some guy on the internet, or if they are articles that they are referenced. thanks to all in advance who help me out.

Twin Peak · 04-16-2006, 06:38 PM

Hey man. I can't help...but its been years, and I wanted to say hello!

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:42 PM

Brian Hamil did a study comparing sports injuries per 100 participant hours in school sports. The results (based in percentages) showed that olympic weightlifting in the UK totalled .0017 of all those injuries. Rugby in UK was 1.92 and rugby in AUS was seccond with 1.48. AMerican Basketball registered a 1.03. The highest sports injuries came from Soccer in the UK, registering a 6.20 injury rate. Here is the study.

tell your teacher to suck my cock

your teacher is a stupid cunt

your teacher should die

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:47 PM

I hate your teacher

Quote:

Weightlifters [Olympic style] have less than half the injury rate per 100 hours of training than do those engaged in other forms of weight training; 17 vs 35. (Hamill, B. “Relative Safety of Weightlifting and Weight Training.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8(1):53-57.1994)

Quote:

Retired Olympic weight lifters had lower lifetime incidence and prevalence of low back pain than a control group of normal active men of similar age; 23% vs. 31%. (Granhed, H. et al. “Low back pain among retired wrestlers and heavyweight lifters.”

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:47 PM

your teacher should kill herself

Quote:

Effects of power training on muscle structure and neuromuscular performance.

Kyrolainen H, Avela J, McBride JM, Koskinen S, Andersen JL, Sipila S, Takala TE, Komi PV.

Department of Biology of Physical Activity, Neuromuscular Research Center, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla, Finland. heikki@sport.jyu.fi

The present study examines changes in muscle structure and neuromuscular performance induced by 15 weeks of power training with explosive muscle actions. Twenty-three subjects, including 10 controls, volunteered for the study. Muscle biopsies were obtained from the gastrocnemius muscle before and after the training period, while maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVC) and drop jump tests were performed once every fifth week. No statistically significant improvements in MVC of the knee extensor (KE) and plantarflexor muscles were observed during the training period. However, the maximal rate of force development (RFD) of KE increased from 18,836+/-4282 to 25,443+/-8897 N (P<0.05) during the first 10 weeks of training. In addition, vertical jump height (vertical rise of the center of body mass) in the drop jump test increased significantly (P<0.01). Simultaneously, explosive force production of KE muscles measured as knee moment and power increased significantly; however, there was no significant change (P>0.05) in muscle activity (electromyography) of KE. The mean percentage for myosin heavy chain and titin isoforms, muscle fiber-type distributions and areas were unchanged. The enhanced performance in jumping as a result of power training can be explained, in part, by some modification in the joint control strategy and/or increased RFD capabilities of the KE.

PMID: 15679573 [PubMed - in process]

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:48 PM

how many athletes has your teaher ever trained? Does she work out? Or is she a fat fuck arm chair quadterback?

Quote:

Comparison of Olympic vs. traditional power lifting training programs in football players.

Hoffman JR, Cooper J, Wendell M, Kang J.

Department of Health and Exercise Science, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey 08628-0718, USA. hoffmanj@tcnj.edu

Twenty members of an National Collegiate Athletic Association Division III collegiate football team were assigned to either an Olympic lifting (OL) group or power lifting (PL) group. Each group was matched by position and trained 4-days.wk(-1) for 15 weeks. Testing consisted of field tests to evaluate strength (1RM squat and bench press), 40-yard sprint, agility, vertical jump height (VJ), and vertical jump power (VJP). No significant pre- to posttraining differences were observed in 1RM bench press, 40-yard sprint, agility, VJ or in VJP in either group. Significant improvements were seen in 1RM squat in both the OL and PL groups. After log10-transformation, OL were observed to have a significantly greater improvement in Delta VJ than PL. Despite an 18% greater improvement in 1RM squat (p > 0.05), and a twofold greater improvement (p > 0.05) in 40-yard sprint time by OL, no further significant group differences were seen. Results suggest that OL can provide a significant advantage over PL in vertical jump performance changes.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Controlled Clinical Trial

PMID: 14971971 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:49 PM

It is so sad that your teacher stopped learning after she got her degree:

Quote:

Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps.

Stone MH, O'Bryant HS, McCoy L, Coglianese R, Lehmkuhl M, Schilling B.

Sports Science, United States Olympic Committee; Colorado Springs, Colorado 80909, USA. mike.stone@usoc.org

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) squat to power output during countermovement and static weighted vertical squat jumps. The training experience of subjects (N = 22, 87.0 +/- 15.3 kg, 14.1 +/- 7.1% fat, 22.2 +/- 3.8 years) ranged from 7 weeks to 15+ years. Based on the 1RM squat, subjects were further divided into the 5 strongest and 5 weakest subjects (p <or= 0.05). Squat jumps were performed with a countermovement or statically at 2 different sessions spaced 1 week apart. Jumps were performed with weights ranging from 10 to 100% of the 1RM squat. A maximum effort was made for each trial; subjects performed jumps (feet left the floor) with weights up to approximately 90% of 1RM. Squat-jump power was determined using the V-scope 120. Results indicate strong correlations (r = 0.77-0.94) between the 1RM squat and both countermovement and static jump power up to 90% of 1RM. The highest power outputs for both jump conditions occurred at 10% of the 1RM and decreased as the relative intensity increased. Comparisons of weak and strong subjects indicate that as maximum strength increases the percentage of 1RM at which peak power occurs also increases (40 vs. 10% of 1RM). From a practical aspect, to improve jumping power output, these results suggest that improving maximum strength should be a primary component of training programs and that strength training should shift from lighter (10% 1RM) to heavier (40% 1RM) loads.

PMID: 12580669 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:50 PM

I can't believe the type of people they allow in the education field these days:

Quote:

Department of Kinesiology, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas 76308, USA.

Muscular power is considered one of the main determinants of athletic performance that require the explosive production of force such as throwing and jumping. Various training methods have been suggested to improve muscular power and dynamic athletic performance. Although various acute training valuables (e.g., sets, repetitions, rest intervals) could be manipulated, the training loads used are some of the most important factors that determine the training stimuli and the consequent training adaptations. Many research results showed that the use of different training loads elicits the different training adaptations and further indicated the load- and velocity-specific adaptations in muscular-power development. Using the optimal loads at which mechanical power output occurs has been recommended, especially to enhance maximum muscular power. Additionally, introducing periodization and combined training approach into resistance-training programs may further facilitate muscular-power development and enhance a wide variety of athletic performances.

Publication Types:

* Review
* Review, Tutorial

PMID: 15320680 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:51 PM

you can't tell me that people in your class believe her!

Quote:

Biomechanical analysis of the knee during the power clean.

Souza AL, Shimada SD.

Biomechanical Consultants of California, Davis, California 95616, USA. alsst136@pitt.edu

To our knowledge, no scientific literature has examined the 3-dimensional forces acting at the knee joint during a power clean. Ten male weightlifting subjects (25.9 years, SD 3.54) performed 1 set of the power clean at 60 and 70% of their maximal collegiate level for 5 repetitions. The subjects displayed a large compressive, moderate anterior, and a small degree of lateral and medial force at the knee during both percentage lifts. The majority of these forces occurred during the second pull phase or the catching phase of the lift. Lifters with decreased weight/system weight percentages displayed a more efficient lift that placed less stress on the knees. This analysis may provide invaluable information in the assessment of weight percentages used for Olympic weightlifters throughout the training year. the power clean.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial

PMID: 11991784 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:51 PM

just a few more on power

Quote:

Human muscle power output during upper- and lower-body exercises.

Siegel JA, Gilders RM, Staron RS, Hagerman FC.

School of Recreation and Sport Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of traditional resistance training equipment in the measurement of muscular power. This was accomplished by measuring the velocity of movement through a measured distance during maximal effort lifts using a Smith rack. The reliability of the method was established using 10 male volunteers who performed both bench press and squat exercises in a Smith rack. Maximal power output was determined at 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90% of the subject's 1 repetition maximum (1RM). Test-retest power values were not statistically different. Another 15 male volunteers who had previous muscle biopsy data from the vastus lateralis muscle performed the same maximal power output evaluation. There were no significant relationships between peak power outputs and fiber-type expressions when linear regressions were performed. The power curve produced by graphing power output vs. the percentage of 1RM indicates that peak power output occurs between 50 and 70% of 1RM for the squat and between 40 and 60% of 1RM for the bench press. These data indicate that this method of evaluation of muscle power is reliable, although it is not predictive of muscle fiber-type percentages.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial

PMID: 11991767 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Vieope · 04-16-2006, 06:53 PM

I agree

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 06:54 PM

as far as the multiple set vs. single set debate.....jsut type that into pubmed and you will find data to support yourself.

give her a kiss for me too.

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 07:00 PM

Here is one for you YAN. Since you are pretty close to being a woman anyway:

Quote:

: J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Nov;18(4):689-94. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Effects of single- vs. multiple-set resistance training on maximum strength and body composition in trained postmenopausal women.

Kemmler WK, Lauber D, Engelke K, Weineck J.

Institute of Medical Physics, University of Erlangen, Germany. wolfgang.kemmler@imp.uni-erlangen.de

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a single- vs. a multiple-set resistance training protocol in well-trained early postmenopausal women. Subjects (N = 71) were randomly assigned to begin either with 12 weeks of the single-set or 12 weeks of the multiple-set protocol. After another 5 weeks of regenerational resistance training, the subgroup performing the single-set protocol during the first 12 weeks crossed over to the 12-week multiple-set protocol and vice versa. Neither exercise type nor exercise intensity, degree of fatigue, rest periods, speed of movement, training sessions per week, compliance and attendance, or periodization strategy differed between exercise protocols. Body mass, body composition, and 1 repetition maximum (1RM) values for leg press, bench press, rowing, and leg adduction were measured at baseline and after each period. Multiple-set training resulted in significant increases (3.5-5.5%) for all 4 strength measurements, whereas single-set training resulted in significant decreases (-1.1 to -2.0%). Body mass and body composition did not change during the study. The results show that, in pretrained subjects, multiple-set protocols are superior to single-set protocols in increasing maximum strength.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 15574068 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Vieope · 04-16-2006, 07:04 PM

Do you understand everything you quoted there P?
Dont lie to me, dont lie to me on easter.

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 07:08 PM

more fun with the teacher:

Quote:

1: J Strength Cond Res. 2002 Nov;16(4):525-9. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength.

Rhea MR, Alvar BA, Ball SD, Burkett LN.

Exercise and Wellness Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science and Physical Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85212, USA. matthew.rhea@asu.edu

The purpose of this study was to compare single and multiple sets of weight training for strength gains in recreationally trained individuals. Sixteen men (age = 21 +/- 2.0) were randomly assigned to 1 set (S-1; n = 8) or 3 set (S-3; n = 8) groups and trained 3 days per week for 12 weeks. One repetition maximum (1RM) was recorded for bench press and leg press at pre-, mid-, and posttest. Subjects trained according to daily undulating periodization (DUP), involving the bench press and leg press exercises between 4RM and 8RM. Training intensity was equated for both groups. Analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed statistically significant differences favoring S-3 in the leg press (p < 0.05, effect size [ES] = 6.5) and differences approaching significance in the bench press (p = 0.07, ES = 2.3). The results demonstrate that for recreationally trained individuals using DUP training, 3 sets of training are superior to 1 set for eliciting maximal strength gains.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 12423180 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vieope

Do you understand everything you quoted there P?
Dont lie to me, dont lie to me on easter.

ofcourse I do.

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 07:10 PM

more

Quote:

J Strength Cond Res. 2001 Aug;15(3):284-9. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Single- vs. multiple-set strength training in women.

Schlumberger A, Stec J, Schmidtbleicher D.

Institute of Sport Sciences, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of single-set and multiple-set strength training in women. Twenty-seven women (aged 20-40 years) with basic experience in strength training were randomly allocated to either a single-set group (n = 9), a 3-set group (n = 9), or a nontraining control group (n = 9). Both training groups underwent a whole-body strengthening program, exercising 2 days a week for 6 weeks. Exercises included bilateral leg extension, bilateral leg curl, abdominal crunch, seated hip adduction/abduction, seated bench press, and lateral pull-down. The single-set group's program consisted of only 1 set of 6-9 repetitions until failure, whereas the multiple-set group trained with 3 sets of 6-9 repetitions until failure (rest interval between sets, 2 minutes). Two times before and 3 days after termination of the training program, subjects were tested for their 1 repetition maximum strength on the bilateral leg extension and the seated bench press machine. Data were analyzed using a repeated-measures analysis of variance, Scheffe tests, t-tests, and calculation of effect sizes. Both training groups made significant strength improvements in leg extension (multiple-set group, 15%; single-set group, 6%; p 0.05). However, in the seated bench press only the 3-set group showed a significant increase in maximal strength (10%). Calculation of effect sizes and percentage gains revealed higher strength gains in the multiple-set group. No significant differences were found in the control group. These findings suggest superior strength gains occurred following 3-set strength training compared with single-set strength training in women with basic experience in resistance training.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 11710652 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Tough Old Man · 04-16-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

as far as the multiple set vs. single set debate.....jsut type that into pubmed and you will find data to support yourself.

give her a kiss for me too.

here I did it

Single- vs. multiple-set resistance training: recent developments in the controversy.

Galvao DA, Taaffe DR.

School of Human Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

The number of sets in a resistance training program remains a major point of discussion and controversy. Studies prior to 1998 demonstrated inconsistent findings between single-set and multiple-set programs; however, recent evidence suggests that multiple sets promote additional benefits following short- and long-term training. The rationale supporting multiple sets is that the number of sets is part of the exercise volume equation, and the volume of exercise is crucial in producing the stimulus necessary to elicit specific physiological adaptations. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of recent resistance training studies comparing single and multiple sets. However, it should be noted that studies to date have been conducted in young and middle-aged adults, and it remains to be determined if the additional benefits accrued with multiple-set training also occurs for older adults, especially the frail elderly.

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 07:12 PM

still another...

Quote:

J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Feb;17(1):115-20. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
The influence of volume of exercise on early adaptations to strength training.

Paulsen G, Myklestad D, Raastad T.

Laboratory of Exercise Physiology, Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education, N-0806 Oslo, Norway.

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of single-set strength training and 3-set strength training during the early phase of adaptation in 18 untrained male subjects (age, 20-30 years). After initial testing, subjects were randomly assigned to either the 3L-1U group (n = 8), which trained 3 sets in leg exercises and 1 set in upper-body exercises, or the 1L-3U group (n = 10), which trained 1 set in leg exercises and 3 sets in upper-body exercises. Testing was conducted at the beginning and at the end of the study and consisted of 2 maximal isometric tests (knee extension and bench press) and 6 maximal dynamic tests (1 repetition maximum [1RM] tests). Subjects trained 3 days per week for 6 weeks. After warm-up, subjects performed 3 leg exercises and 4 upper-body exercises. In both groups, each set consisted of 7 repetitions (reps) with the load supposed to induce muscular failure after the seventh rep (7RM load). After 6 weeks of training, 1RM performance in all training exercises was significantly increased (10-26%, p < 0.01) in both groups. The relative increase in 1RM load in the 3 leg exercises was significantly greater in the 3L-1U group than in the 1L-3U group (21% vs. 14%, p = 0.01). However, the relative increase in 1RM load in the 3 upper-body exercises was similar in the 3L-1U group (16%) and the 1L-3U group (14%). These results show a superior adaptation to 3-set strength training, compared with 1-set strength training, in leg exercises but not in upper-body exercises during the early phase of adaptation.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 12580666 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

shiznit2169 · 04-16-2006, 07:14 PM

p-funk is on a rage here

Just take yan's place and hide in disguise when u go to class and rip the teacher apart

Vieope · 04-16-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-funk

ofcourse I do.

Good then I dont need to explain you anything.

**P-funk** · 04-16-2006, 07:16 PM

okay, one more and I will stop. A quantitative analysis of previous studies. this one should drive the stake in your stupipd teachers heart

Quote:

J Strength Cond Res. 2004 Feb;18(1):35-47. Related Articles, Links
Click here to read
Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training.

Wolfe BL, LeMura LM, Cole PJ.

Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania, Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania 17815, USA.

The purpose of this study was to examine the existing research on single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs. Using the meta-analytic approach, we included studies that met the following criteria in our analysis: (a) at least 6 subjects per group; (b) subject groups consisting of single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs; (c) pretest and posttest strength measures; (d) training programs of 6 weeks or more; (e) apparently "healthy" individuals free from orthopedic limitations; and (f) published studies in English-language journals only. Sixteen studies generated 103 effect sizes (ESs) based on a total of 621 subjects, ranging in age from 15-71 years. Across all designs, intervention strategies, and categories, the pretest to posttest ES in muscular strength was (chi = 1.4 +/- 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.8; p < 0.001). The results of 2 x 2 analysis of variance revealed simple main effects for age, training status (trained vs. untrained), and research design (p < 0.001). No significant main effects were found for sex, program duration, and set end point. Significant interactions were found for training status and program duration (6-16 weeks vs. 17-40 weeks) and number of sets performed (single vs. multiple). The data indicated that trained individuals performing multiple sets generated significantly greater increases in strength (p < 0.001). For programs with an extended duration, multiple sets were superior to single sets (p < 0.05). This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an initial short training period in untrained individuals result in similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs are more effective.

Publication Types:

* Meta-Analysis
* Review

PMID: 14971985 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

04-16-2006, 06:19 PM	#1
Yanick Amor Fati Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,798	Help me argue with my professor My kinesiology professor is a pretty cool lady, knows her stuff, or atleast it seems like she does. Her one downside is she is one of those "oly lifts are dangerous and not necessary, 1 set per exercise is enough stimulation" etc. She reminds me of those Super Slow/HIT trainers. We got into a discussion about oly lifts (some guy asked about upright rowing the barbell up during cleans, and i had to correct him obviously ) She started telling the class about studies etc that say you don't need more than 1 set to stimulate a muscle and that oly lifts are dangerous with little to no positive returns. so i promised her that i would bring her some abstracts/studies to look at, so hopefully she'll get her head out of the sand and into the real world. i remember Pat posted a bunch of stuff on oly lifting but i can't find it, and i remember waaaay back when, Dr. Pain used to say stuff like per x amount of hours of exercise oly lifters show less injuries than bodybuilders and powerlifters. so if anyone can hook me up with some scientific evidence to back up my case i'll be a happy camper...i'll be looking around and if i find something of interest i'll be sure to post up here for all to see and critique. the only thing i ask is that the posts are scientific and not just articles by some guy on the internet, or if they are articles that they are referenced. thanks to all in advance who help me out.
Yanick Amor Fati Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,798	"...we have to remember that training is a complicated dance of stimuli and response. Our goal is to understand how to manipulate the stimuli in order to evoke the responses we desire." -Nathan J. Polenchek

04-16-2006, 06:38 PM	#2
Twin Peak Peak Physiques™ Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: NY Posts: 7,870	Hey man. I can't help...but its been years, and I wanted to say hello!
	www.DesignerSupps.com INTELLIGENT DESIGN™...lands on 1/1/2007 www.intelligentdesignmag.com

04-16-2006, 06:42 PM	#3
P-funk Patrick Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 30,574	Brian Hamil did a study comparing sports injuries per 100 participant hours in school sports. The results (based in percentages) showed that olympic weightlifting in the UK totalled .0017 of all those injuries. Rugby in UK was 1.92 and rugby in AUS was seccond with 1.48. AMerican Basketball registered a 1.03. The highest sports injuries came from Soccer in the UK, registering a 6.20 injury rate. Here is the study. tell your teacher to suck my cock your teacher is a stupid cunt your teacher should die
	http://pwtraining.blogspot.com/.....come and see what is on my mind! Ivonne's Blog on Health and Wellness! Optimum Sports Performance "In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, in the experts there are few." -Buddha's Little Instruction Book

04-16-2006, 06:53 PM	#11
Vieope Monochromatic Bunny Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: drinking coffee.. Posts: 14,857 Photos: 10	I agree
	FURtherness

04-16-2006, 06:54 PM	#12
P-funk Patrick Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 30,574	as far as the multiple set vs. single set debate.....jsut type that into pubmed and you will find data to support yourself. give her a kiss for me too.
	http://pwtraining.blogspot.com/.....come and see what is on my mind! Ivonne's Blog on Health and Wellness! Optimum Sports Performance "In the beginners mind there are many possibilities, in the experts there are few." -Buddha's Little Instruction Book

04-16-2006, 07:04 PM	#14
Vieope Monochromatic Bunny Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: drinking coffee.. Posts: 14,857 Photos: 10	Do you understand everything you quoted there P? Dont lie to me, dont lie to me on easter.
	FURtherness

04-16-2006, 07:14 PM	#20
shiznit2169 flawless Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 4,097 Photos: 1	p-funk is on a rage here Just take yan's place and hide in disguise when u go to class and rip the teacher apart
	My Journal