Forums >Running 101>Knees are Tight
Biomimeticist
Correct, they are not. You did not specify that it had to be biomechanics when you claimed that science isn't in my vocabulary. You just made a weird ass claim. Inconceivable.
You're the one asserting to having more knowledge than I have in your attempts to shut me up.
You may know how to look up the word science in a dictionary; but that doesn't mean you know how to apply it to any arguement.
Experts said the world is flat
Experts said that man would never fly
Experts said we'd never go to the moon
Name me one of those "experts"...
History never remembers the name of experts; just the innovators who had the guts to challenge and prove the "experts" wrong
There is an art to communication, and Mr. Jester obviously has not been properly schooled in that art.
I believe that he may have a degree, and he may work in the industry of Biomimeticist's. Who knows? Who cares? The point is that his ability to communicate effectively is limited to that of an infant. We hear screaming and arguing, and we know he wants something. Maybe it's a pacifier. Maybe it's a bottle. Maybe it's a dirty diaper. Maybe is attention, affection, or a hug. But all we hear is screaming. That's his form of communication.
Mr. Jester struggles with communication.
His words aren't coherent.
His words are slanted.
His viewpoint is rigid.
His image is tainted within this community.
For all I know, the people that speak and communicate with authority within this community that I trust for their insight and wisdom are also useless (likely they're not, though). But, they can at least walk me through their arguments and their viewpoints in a manner that makes sense while allowing me to be a student who can read, listen, and rationalize the argument.
The difference is huge. The lack of communication will limit him in his ability to spread "the truth" as he knows it.
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
After sitting quietly for some time, I got up with a jerk.
But all we hear is screaming. That's his form of communication. Mr. Jester struggles with communication. His words aren't coherent. His words are slanted. His viewpoint is rigid. His image is tainted within this community. The difference is huge. The lack of communication will limit him in his ability to spread "the truth" as he knows it.
But all we hear is screaming. That's his form of communication.
I answered the OP's original post with the full intent to answer her question of knee pain. My viewpoint isn't "rigid" in fact its incredibly fluid.
I wasn't the one who states I'm a "crackpot". In challenging the accuser to defend the science behind his accusation, as he obviously couldn't, made the attacks personal against myself. I don't lack any communication skills....
Using science isn't being 'rigid"; its being factual. Big difference if your opinion is based upon someone else's opinion instead of actual facts.
But trying to drown my voice in any discussion with useless distractions isn't my issue...
You're the one asserting to having more knowledge than I have in your attempts to shut me up. You may know how to look up the word science in a dictionary; but that doesn't mean you know how to apply it to any arguement.
Well, let's be clear on one thing.
I do not believe I have at any point asserted that I have "more" knowledge. I'm not even sure I've tried to assert that I have much knowledge. I leave that to the jeffs and the mikes and the spaniels and the Japanese Man With The Resume And References.
My knowledge lies elsewhere. The bitch of being old is that I forgot exactly where I left it. So I've been stumbling around looking.
As for applying "science", I'm pretty sure I can in some situations and contexts. As for applying it to any arguement (sic), correct.
Calling me the "resident crackpot" doesn't bode well for "scientific debate"....
My statements for the OP were accurate and backed up with clinical studies to prove it.
All I asked was what research your advice was based upon if you so claim someone is going to get hurt following my advice.
You couldn't provide it, and in classic "debate" had to resort to attacking me personally when I asked for proof to your statement.
Its funny in my hundreds of hours of reading biomechanic texbooks in the college science library, I never once saw any athlete doing the same, let alone anyone from the general public taking such time to study running mechanics.
Its obvious you don't like what I write, so to make this exchange quick, at least try to find some real science to back up what you put in print.
My viewpoint isn't "rigid" in fact its incredibly fluid. Using science isn't being 'rigid"; its being factual. Big difference if your opinion is based upon someone else's opinion instead of actual facts.
My viewpoint isn't "rigid" in fact its incredibly fluid.
I think I'm defining rigid different than you.
What I'm trying to say is that within a debate you NEED to understand the stance of the other person within your dialogue.
What I mean by stance is that you need to understand their background, and that could include (1) previous training / coaching, (2) their view, (3) their rationale, (4) their sensitivity to change.
In order to gain others attention in a positive manner, you may want to acknowledge that they're decent people who do well doing what they do, but it may appear that a change to their viewpoint could make them better. But unfortunately, I don't really read that from any of your words. You give the impression that your way is the only way to being able to run well.
This morning, I was reading one of Nobby's posts relating to a woman who was training for a marathon in a few months, and whether the Lydiard way (containing runs totaling 134 minutes) would be sufficient compared to the Higdon training plan. She was asking the question and was concerned with the training plan that she was reading. Nobby happened to do a great job of communicating why the training program showed what it showed. He closed out his post with some words stating that the school of thought may be transitioning. He wrote: "The verdict is still out there but we actually do believe that our program is a new wave to get yourself for a marathon."
Thanks,
Nah this style is better
You lose princess
Ha - I win (unrelated)
You have the need to win hence you lose.
Feeling the growl again
Neither does having a personality stuck in low gear and telling everyone they are turtle dung compared to your stellar supposed experience training Navy Ostriches how to carry 150lbs of gear into battle on their heads without flapping their wings. But that's all you've got. I don't call people crackpots lightly.
And case studies are not science. Yours says one thing; mine says another. There is nothing scientific about that. Scientific results are definitive and reproducible by other parties.
"If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does. There's your pep talk for today. Go Run." -- Slo_Hand
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
I fully agree that any communication is a back and forth process. What differs with anyone isn't what I write or say, but to what extent anyone really wants their questions answered. If I were truly the complete jackass that I'm described as in any forum, then I don't think I'd be invited into sports research labs, offered to train entire football teams, or have orthopedic surgeons as clients, let alone consult in the NBA if I were abrasive in person.
In fact I'm quite the opposite if you knew me in person.
How I communicate with others is also based upon their reactions. Every communication is a two way street. And to accuse me of having my attitude, then such reality is that I don't have to attack anyone to claim greater authority in any subject. I'm very confident in what I know, and I'll always use science to back up what I write.
I start any conversation in the most civil tone possible. As you assert, I'm not interested in confrontation. With this thread as example, I didn't attack anyone, discredit them, or make any attempt to harass them until I was attacked first.
Sure civility is any goal in communication, but that requires all parties of the exchange to attain the same levels of exchange.
Scientific results are definitive and reproducible by other parties.
Which is why Navy SEALS can reproduce my results because they're dedicated athletes with much more serious consicquences to making mistakes.
If the party refuses to reproduce them, doesn't mean it can't be done.
rectumdamnnearkilledem
For Ilene:
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
Well, let's be clear on one thing. I do not believe I have at any point asserted that I have "more" knowledge.
I do not believe I have at any point asserted that I have "more" knowledge.
How quaint.....
Calling anyone a crackpot implies a higher level of education in your obvious implications. So please don't claim anything less than the truth...
Not only do you do it lightly, you do it with no proof.
When did SRLopez call you a "crackpot"? I believe that was Spaniel.
When did SRLopez say he had more knowledge then ANYONE posting here?
The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff
2014 Goals:
Stay healthy
Enjoy life
When did SRLopez call you a "crackpot"? I believe that was Spaniel. When did SRLopez say he had more knowledge then ANYONE posting here?
He confused me with spaniel in the other thread (that became the 100 mile challenge thread) too. In the same way, kept saying that I said something.
How odd.
sport jester robert: I am not spaniel.
I fully admit to having less knowledge than all people here.