Re: CIVILITY was Weightlifting-Chris/DMM

[Guest guest]

This list has a long tradition of civility, despite heavy disagreements. In

the past, some times there is tension evident in posts, but the least we can

do is avoid nasty personal insults. If you're having monthly problems or

forgot to drink your raw milk this morning, it shouldn't be taken out on other

people on the list.

Chris

In a message dated 11/1/03 8:45:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> What the bloody hell is the matter with you? ... Dude, the crap you're

> spouting is baseless conjecture. I don't give a rat's ass how long you've been

> training. ... Listen up: if experience is the determining factor here, then

> shut the hell up ... As such, your arguments can simply dismissed off hand as

> the ranting of an angry man.

>

[Guest guest]

Hey, he's the one who attacked me.

I like the way you veiled your attack, btw.

-Zulu

> This list has a long tradition of civility, despite heavy

disagreements. In

> the past, some times there is tension evident in posts, but the

least we can

> do is avoid nasty personal insults. If you're having monthly

problems or

> forgot to drink your raw milk this morning, it shouldn't be taken

out on other

> people on the list.

>

> Chris

>

> In a message dated 11/1/03 8:45:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > What the bloody hell is the matter with you? ... Dude, the crap

you're

> > spouting is baseless conjecture. I don't give a rat's ass how long

you've been

> > training. ... Listen up: if experience is the determining factor

here, then

> > shut the hell up ... As such, your arguments can simply dismissed

off hand as

> > the ranting of an angry man.

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 9:54:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Hey, he's the one who attacked me.

>

> I like the way you veiled your attack, btw.

I suppose it's possible I missed the post, since that, annoyingly, happens

all the time with , but I didn't see anything at that level from him. But

my post, while in response to yours, was generic in its implications. I have

no interest in lecturing or berating you especially since I've been uncivil by

my own standards in the past to my regret.

What attack and what veil?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 4:16:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Look, Doctor Marasco is clearly offensive in practically all of his

> posts. This remark doesn't stem from any innate sensitivity on my

> part; it is an obvious trait of his.

Clearly to you. But since it is so clear to you but not to others, this

seems to indicate a difference in sensitivity, if one is to believe that offense

is in the eye of the beholder.

> I'm practically always civil except when provoked. If there's one

> thing I can stand it's the self righteous pompous argumentatation of

> over-confident jerks. If we trace this thread back, you'll notice that

> I stated that, IMHO, SS training was not an effective or safer way to

> train. His response was an attack.

, I've read every email in this thread that came in to my box and I'm

just not sure what you're talking about. You both chose to enter into a

yes-and-no debate, playing ping pong with your assertions and not offering any

evidence, so apparently it went to its natural conclusion of each asserting the

other

has no basis for judgment, etc. I personally think the whole thing is

childish. But I think you need to differentiate between questioning someone's

basis

for judgement, however polite or impolite the manner, and simply throwing

around personal insults of character or downright namecalling.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Civility is nice. Try to avoid bad words and personal attacks. Before

you send a message, step back and try to determine if anything you've

said will personally offend someone. If you're simply stating your

disagreement, there should be no chance of it offending anyone. Anger

only begets anger. This applies to real life too. It's a constant

challenge to be the one turning the other cheek (e.g. by staying calm

when someone's attacking you), but in the long run, it will help you

and help the world.

Tom, not trying to be self-righteous as he's been in far too many

angry e-battles for that

> This list has a long tradition of civility, despite heavy

disagreements. In

> the past, some times there is tension evident in posts, but the

least we can

> do is avoid nasty personal insults. If you're having monthly

problems or

> forgot to drink your raw milk this morning, it shouldn't be taken

out on other

> people on the list.

>

> Chris

>

> In a message dated 11/1/03 8:45:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > What the bloody hell is the matter with you? ... Dude, the crap

you're

> > spouting is baseless conjecture. I don't give a rat's ass how long

you've been

> > training. ... Listen up: if experience is the determining factor

here, then

> > shut the hell up ... As such, your arguments can simply dismissed

off hand as

> > the ranting of an angry man.

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 4:51:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> Sensitive (just kidding )

I'm not sensitive. What makes you think I'm sensitive? What is this? Just

because I try to help out and fix a situation I'm considered " sensitive " ???

> We both took part in childish personal attacks...after he made the

> first snide comment.

lol

> What I fail to understand is why he shouldn't have to present the

> evidence for his case. I'm calling him on the points he's making so he

> should substantiate them. It's not up to me to disprove every quack

> theory out there.

What are you talking about? He said there is no evidence that increased rep

duration is harmful. What's he supposed to substantiate?

> BTW, if there is anybody at all who actually advocates SS training, I

> wouldn't mind bringing forward the evidence I've found. If the only

> person parroting the idea is DMM, then let him bring the evidence or

> else this whole argument has little basis.

I think the only person who claimed to practice SS was actually.

> I retract the whole 'idiotic' thing although I think there is no

> difference between that and the comments that were addressed to me,

> political correctness aside.

> One think I do find irksome is people who think their advice is golden

> simply because they have training experience. If this criteria were in

> anyway helpful, we'd have millions of equally correct theories out

> there. The question is not: who has the most experience, but rather:

> who has the evidence on his side.

Or hers. I frankly don't see where you're getting the " golden " thing from

but anyway I'm going to stop writing about this because I hope it just kind of

fades away and people keep in mind the civility points for next itme.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/03 5:04:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

paultheo2000@... writes:

> DMM has been calling me sensitive in the most snide way for like 4

> posts now. See why I'm getting annoyed?

I was trying to be ironic :-)

> He claimed that slow reps were safer than fast controlled reps. This

> is a baseless unsubstantiated assumption.

That's not really what he said-- my understanding of his posts were that

control is what's important, but most people do not have the discipline to do

fast

controlled reps, and the slow cadence is essentially a crutch to bring about

the exercise of control in people who are otherwise incompetent at doing so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Look, Doctor Marasco is clearly offensive in practically all of his

posts. This remark doesn't stem from any innate sensitivity on my

part; it is an obvious trait of his.

I'm practically always civil except when provoked. If there's one

thing I can stand it's the self righteous pompous argumentatation of

over-confident jerks. If we trace this thread back, you'll notice that

I stated that, IMHO, SS training was not an effective or safer way to

train. His response was an attack.

I can only hope this guy doesn't go out into the real world and

actually interacts with people.

-

> In a message dated 11/1/03 9:54:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Hey, he's the one who attacked me.

> >

> > I like the way you veiled your attack, btw.

>

> I suppose it's possible I missed the post, since that, annoyingly,

happens

> all the time with , but I didn't see anything at that level

from him. But

> my post, while in response to yours, was generic in its

implications. I have

> no interest in lecturing or berating you especially since I've been

uncivil by

> my own standards in the past to my regret.

>

> What attack and what veil?

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sensitive (just kidding )

We both took part in childish personal attacks...after he made the

first snide comment.

What I fail to understand is why he shouldn't have to present the

evidence for his case. I'm calling him on the points he's making so he

should substantiate them. It's not up to me to disprove every quack

theory out there.

BTW, if there is anybody at all who actually advocates SS training, I

wouldn't mind bringing forward the evidence I've found. If the only

person parroting the idea is DMM, then let him bring the evidence or

else this whole argument has little basis.

I retract the whole 'idiotic' thing although I think there is no

difference between that and the comments that were addressed to me,

political correctness aside.

One think I do find irksome is people who think their advice is golden

simply because they have training experience. If this criteria were in

anyway helpful, we'd have millions of equally correct theories out

there. The question is not: who has the most experience, but rather:

who has the evidence on his side.

-

> In a message dated 11/1/03 4:16:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Look, Doctor Marasco is clearly offensive in practically all of his

> > posts. This remark doesn't stem from any innate sensitivity on my

> > part; it is an obvious trait of his.

>

> Clearly to you. But since it is so clear to you but not to others,

this

> seems to indicate a difference in sensitivity, if one is to believe

that offense

> is in the eye of the beholder.

>

> > I'm practically always civil except when provoked. If there's one

> > thing I can stand it's the self righteous pompous argumentatation of

> > over-confident jerks. If we trace this thread back, you'll notice that

> > I stated that, IMHO, SS training was not an effective or safer way to

> > train. His response was an attack.

>

> , I've read every email in this thread that came in to my box

and I'm

> just not sure what you're talking about. You both chose to enter

into a

> yes-and-no debate, playing ping pong with your assertions and not

offering any

> evidence, so apparently it went to its natural conclusion of each

asserting the other

> has no basis for judgment, etc. I personally think the whole thing is

> childish. But I think you need to differentiate between questioning

someone's basis

> for judgement, however polite or impolite the manner, and simply

throwing

> around personal insults of character or downright namecalling.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

DMM has been calling me sensitive in the most snide way for like 4

posts now. See why I'm getting annoyed?

He claimed that slow reps were safer than fast controlled reps. This

is a baseless unsubstantiated assumption.

-

> In a message dated 11/1/03 4:51:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > Sensitive (just kidding )

>

> I'm not sensitive. What makes you think I'm sensitive? What is

this? Just

> because I try to help out and fix a situation I'm considered

" sensitive " ???

>

>

> > We both took part in childish personal attacks...after he made the

> > first snide comment.

>

> lol

>

> > What I fail to understand is why he shouldn't have to present the

> > evidence for his case. I'm calling him on the points he's making so he

> > should substantiate them. It's not up to me to disprove every quack

> > theory out there.

>

> What are you talking about? He said there is no evidence that

increased rep

> duration is harmful. What's he supposed to substantiate?

>

>

> > BTW, if there is anybody at all who actually advocates SS training, I

> > wouldn't mind bringing forward the evidence I've found. If the only

> > person parroting the idea is DMM, then let him bring the evidence or

> > else this whole argument has little basis.

>

> I think the only person who claimed to practice SS was actually.

>

> > I retract the whole 'idiotic' thing although I think there is no

> > difference between that and the comments that were addressed to me,

> > political correctness aside.

> > One think I do find irksome is people who think their advice is golden

> > simply because they have training experience. If this criteria were in

> > anyway helpful, we'd have millions of equally correct theories out

> > there. The question is not: who has the most experience, but rather:

> > who has the evidence on his side.

>

> Or hers. I frankly don't see where you're getting the " golden "

thing from

> but anyway I'm going to stop writing about this because I hope it

just kind of

> fades away and people keep in mind the civility points for next itme.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Wow this could be a great lesson for people reading the posts

on this list. If you actually read them you can actually understand

them.

My only thing I'd change about your reply here is that the issue

isn't necessarily incompetence (I'm trying to be more sensitive

nowadays) but usually a lack of experience or training or discipline

or all of the above.

But other than that this is IN FACT EXACTLY what I have been

saying. Which I suppose does make me an idiot in that you said in

25 words what I failed to convey in 25 posts.

Signing off,

Me idiot Him sensitive

> In a message dated 11/1/03 5:04:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> paultheo2000@y... writes:

>

> > DMM has been calling me sensitive in the most snide way for like

4

> > posts now. See why I'm getting annoyed?

>

> I was trying to be ironic :-)

>

> > He claimed that slow reps were safer than fast controlled reps.

This

> > is a baseless unsubstantiated assumption.

>

> That's not really what he said-- my understanding of his posts

were that

> control is what's important, but most people do not have the

discipline to do fast

> controlled reps, and the slow cadence is essentially a crutch to

bring about

> the exercise of control in people who are otherwise incompetent at

doing so.

>

> Chris

>

>

>