The couch thread

Anon · Post by **Anon** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:40 am

Meh, Sounds like two alter boys with an impure thoughts problem, harmless.

Holland Oates · Post by **Holland Oates** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:45 am

Holy shit I am not only still a board member on the @fit forums I have a fucking Cat-At forum membership.

I forgot all about the Cat-At shit and I still can't believe someone at @fit doesn't recognize my name on their message board and dump my ass.

POD · Post by **POD** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:45 am

Shaf, you flatter yourself.

Gary John · Post by **Gary John** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:06 pm

So, now the old Performance Menu allows what got me and Shaf banned.

Hear tell that they have seen the error of their ways and wish to allow Shaf back on.

We need someone to negociate the terms for Shaf. What kind of signing bonus and appropriate gifts to undue the harm suffered by the poor man.

I'm still waiting to get unbanned at x-fit.

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:26 pm

From Shoreline Crossfit.

This is a religion if I've ever seen one.

Yes, it is the holidays. Yes, you can cheat. Please keep in mind that anything that you consume WILL set you back slightly or significantly. Am I going to tell you not to eat your Mother’s empanadas (Blanco) that she makes once a year, or your Aunt Rita’s bourbon balls? NO! How about eating two instead of six? Or going for the cookies instead of the cookies AND the Friendly’s Jubilee Roll (Allie!)? Please realize that if you are an individual that rarely cheats, you are training your body to resist, and NOT to crave those foods. When you do cheat, your brain “re-programs,” so to speak, and you will begin to crave these foods for awhile afterwards. In addition, you may feel sick and your performance in WODs may suffer for a few days (the old “gluten hangover”).

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:02 pm

POD wrote:
(21:20:11) ***: man, those guys at irongarm are obsessed with allisonnyc
(21:20:21) ***: A2 as i know her cuz she was the 2nd allison at the gym
(21:20:50) Pat: Oh, right, you've probably actually met her, haven't you?
(21:21:01) ***: : yeah
(21:21:03) ***: : trained with her
(21:21:19) ***: : I've touched those breasts, on accident or when she's shoved them into my arm
(21:21:32) Pat: Oh, that was no accident.
Conversation held over AIM just now; anonymized for privacy.

Edit: But wait there's more...
(21:26:20) ***: I bet
(21:26:26) ***: they are nice tits
(21:26:35) ***: although they are like way too fucking big
(21:26:50) ***: like I'm sure if that top came off during sex she would give me a concussion with those things
(21:26:53) ***: but they are soft
(21:27:32) ***: this is an assumption but she will flirt with almost anyone
(21:27:47) ***: kinda wish I tried to hit it while she was still around
(21:28:07) Pat: *comment from POD you wouldn't care to read*
(21:28:14) ***: lol
(21:28:17) ***: yeah I know
(21:28:19) ***: just speaking freely
(21:28:29) ***: different head speaking
(21:28:36) Pat: lol
(21:28:54) ***: its true
(21:29:10) ***: she uses her boobs to get around I'm sure
(21:29:18) ***: I know of 2 people who used to "date" her

(21:30:40) ***: no, but they probably are fueling the thread with A2 information possibly
(21:30:45) ***: one of them REALLY hates her
(21:30:54) ***: told us she cost him his job at a gym
(21:31:36) ***: she pretty much sleeps with people, holds them "ransom," by either saying they will tell wife/girlfriend or ruin their career if they were workign together
(21:31:38) ***: stuff like that

Gee, this is your hot gossip, POD? That ANYC is ill-regarded by other @fitters?

How about you tell us something that we don't already know?

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:20 pm

Kazuya Mishima wrote:From Shoreline Crossfit.

This is a religion if I've ever seen one.

Yes, it is the holidays. Yes, you can cheat. Please keep in mind that anything that you consume WILL set you back slightly or significantly. Am I going to tell you not to eat your Mother’s empanadas (Blanco) that she makes once a year, or your Aunt Rita’s bourbon balls? NO! How about eating two instead of six? Or going for the cookies instead of the cookies AND the Friendly’s Jubilee Roll (Allie!)? Please realize that if you are an individual that rarely cheats, you are training your body to resist, and NOT to crave those foods. When you do cheat, your brain “re-programs,” so to speak, and you will begin to crave these foods for awhile afterwards. In addition, you may feel sick and your performance in WODs may suffer for a few days (the old “gluten hangover”).

Wow, Shoreline @fit is a real treasure trove of @fittery.

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:22 pm

If somebody was actually willing to spend the cash in order to be obnoxious, do you think @FHQ would take your money and allow you to register an affiliate name like "@fit Clueless" "@fit FAIL" or "@fit Tards"?

I think even if you opened a box with a name like that you'd still have sheeple signing up and giving you money.

Kazuya Mishima · Post by **Kazuya Mishima** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:24 pm

WildGorillaMan wrote:

These are prime examples of why white people are losing ground in this country.

Gin Master · Post by **Gin Master** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:34 pm

It feels like POD is the little brother of IGX. His head's in the right place, he's decently strong, but he's just kinda gay. Chatting about accidental boob brush? Maybe after enough slaps upside the head, he'll get it right.

Now for some real faggotry...

http://www.cathletics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4921

Apparently Rogue Fitness has produced a Castro Bar, named for Navy Davy.

I looked for some discussion on the @F forums, and I wasn't disappointed.

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=53609&page=2

fag1 wrote:Outside people can say what they want about CrossFit, but the simple fact is that it is helping to create a Renaissance in performance-oriented strength training in the USA. Without the huge surge in interest in BOTH the O-lifts and the Powerlifts created by CrossFit, we would never be seeing the bars and bumper plates that are becoming available!!! When demand is there, the market forces in the USA can and do respond...

Now, if we can only get the USAW (Olympic lifters) and the Powerlifters and the Strongman competitors to come together with CrossFit somehow, we can again be dominant worldwide in the various strength-related sports.

Market demand does not constitute legitimacy.

fag2 wrote:I already have a bar for fast lifts (as discussed in a prior thread... York 32110), but I definitely wanted an upgrade at some point (hence me wanting a Pendlay). Though I think something the Castro will be a general purpose bar for me.

I've definitely seen some amazing improvements in bar technology just in the few months I've been crossfitting. ...I just can't wait for what's in store in the future. We are really driving the market and it'll be interesting to see where it goes from here.
...
5'7" | 152lbs

So he's been @Fing a few months, but he's in a position to comment on bar technology and needs another bar for himself. I realize that short people can be strong--just look at our new Muscle Gnome--but can a 152 lb. newb @Fer can't appreciate the difference in whip, flex, and spin when using 5-lb. technique plates.

Danny John · Post by **Danny John** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:43 pm

To suggest that people doing 65 pound snatches is driving an improvement in Olympic lifting bar technology is perhaps the greatest moment of overstatement I have seen in a long time.

One can only imagine where O bars will be in the near future. Perhaps built in tats?

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:44 pm

Quack Attack wrote:First @F is all bark and no bite, having never actually pursued legal action in any IP situation.

Then they start co-opting practically any mode of exercise invented and calling it "@F".

Now this court decision has been brought to my attention, just as @FHQ has started their initial rounds of decapitating their own affiliates. Legal eagles feel free to comment, but based on this precedent (and the fact that @F has never, ever, ever really defined what it is that they do that is SO different from anything else) it would appear that disgruntled former affiliates could pretty much continue using the name @F and giving @F classes...there goes the branding...D'oh!
http://www.pilates.com/BBAPP/V/about/pi ... wsuit.html

We've talked about it several times before: Cultfit is in a Catch 22. They need to avoid the "franchise" label b/c with it comes heavy taxation on the state and federal level. But to avoid the label, they can't assert too much control over their affiliates (e.g., McDonald's is a franchise so McDonald's HQ can tell everyone what to wear, what to serve, how to cook it, what cups to buy, etc.). But by not asserting control, they (a) can't maintain their brand, and (b) open themselves to liability for FAILING to monitor the quality of the training that takes place under their banner (hence, the RRG, which is designed primarily to defend Couch and Corp. HQ). The more Couch insists on telling people how to do Cultfit, and collects money for doing so, the closer they come to being labeled a franchise.

Comparing the Pilates situation to Cultfit's situation, Cultfit has basically said "everything is Crossfit!" Cultfit is so generic now that they would have a tough time controlling the name. And, again, the more they try to control it, the closer they come to that dreaded franchise label (and LOTS of back taxes in all 50 states in which they operate). Their best bet was to claim that Crossfit = mainpage WOD programming, but they didn't. This would have, of course, alienated most of their affiliates and they would have had to police their affiliiates to be sure they were following mainpage WOD programming while using the Cultfit banner or, again, they would be at risk for failing to control the quality of their affiliates training.

It's a swirling pile of liability and taxation. Couch's "brilliant" pseudo-Corporation idea is a clusterfuck, designed to let him fly under the radar.

TerryB · Post by **TerryB** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:47 pm

The new Castro Bar will have a weight limit of 225 + 200 lbs of band tension.

Clueless Cultfitter wrote:When demand is there, the market forces in the USA can and do respond...

P.T. Barnum stated this much more succinctly: There's a sucker born every minute.

T200 · Post by **T200** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:54 pm

protobuilder wrote: P.T. Barnum stated this much more succinctly: There's a sucker born every minute.

In seventh grade I had to do lip sync song and dance to PT Barnum's novelty song "A Sucker Born Every Minute." Thanks for bringing back this traumatic event.

Yes I Have Balls · Post by **Yes I Have Balls** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:54 pm

Ewan Roth wrote:This is precisely why keeping HQ and affiliate affairs as separate as possible is in everyone's best interest. If people equate CF primarily with their local affiliate and things go smoothly at that level, they will be more likely to pony up at some point for HQ certs, which is where the real money is. Likewise, as long as local CFers don't care about or are unaware of HQ/.com shenanigans or whatever, affiliates can keep attracting clients while taking advantage of the CF banner and avoiding any sort of guilt by association.

Very aware. Thread locked in 3-2-1.

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=53744&page=3

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:57 pm

protobuilder wrote: Comparing the Pilates situation to Cultfit's situation, Cultfit has basically said "everything is Crossfit!" Cultfit is so generic now that they would have a tough time controlling the name.

Ten years ago, if you did something in a public gym that was even remotely oddball, interested observers would ask "What does that work?" Now if you do something unusual in a public gym, onlookers will ask you "Are you doing Crossfit?"

That's about as generic as you can get.

Danny John · Post by **Danny John** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:10 pm

I may not be the original Old School Xfitter that Shaf is, but Greg Glassman himself said that what I do is crossfit. So, if you pull sleds, walk with Farmer Bars and Olympic lift, you ARE crossfitting. Therefore, every quality program is, by definition, crossfit. I had forgotten about this, by the way. I'm OG on the xfittie.

Mountebank · Post by **Mountebank** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:29 pm

So it would seem that since the @F exercise method as a descriptor is unprotected (based on precedent by the Pilates case, as well as @F trying to avoid the franchise problem), it may behoove gym folks who want to attract people in the door through use of that word (simple marketing) to do so without really worrying about any repercussions.

Evan-Esh doesn't do anything like @F, yet he uses the name and affiliate link to get people in the door, then does better programming. If someone like this really worked on their Google placement through using the term @F, they could likely benefit a lot without having to pay the affiliate or certification fees.

OPT has his own gigantic certification process now...lots of $$$. Watch for his head to be next on the chopping block for cutting into HQ's profits.

Blaidd Drwg · Post by **Blaidd Drwg** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:32 pm

Danny John wrote:I may not be the original Old School Xfitter that Shaf is, but Greg Glassman himself said that what I do is crossfit. So, if you pull sleds, walk with Farmer Bars and Olympic lift, you ARE crossfitting. Therefore, every quality program is, by definition, crossfit. I had forgotten about this, by the way. I'm OG on the xfittie.

there's goes strongman.
maybe i'll concentrate on sucking at something else.
is throwing shit whilst wearing a skirt crossfit?
is raw powerlifting crossfit?
what about bench only?
I have a fair amount of ink, I suppose if I drink pisswater beer on top of that, it's crossfit?
is screwing my wife crossfit? what if she's a milf?

i'm totally foxtrot uniform charlie tango now.

WildGorillaMan · Post by **WildGorillaMan** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:35 pm

I just opened up Crossfit Gorillaman in my basement gym. I'll hang a sign over the doorway tonight.

It's too cold right now to train shirtless though, so I guess what I'm doing "isn't really @fit"

T200 · Post by **T200** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:42 pm

Never too cold for shirtlessness IMO.

sanchezero · Post by **sanchezero** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:56 pm

Kazuya Mishima wrote:
WildGorillaMan wrote:

These are prime examples of why white people are losing ground in this country.

ok, i think i just figured out why these @fat guys have so many tattoos...it's an excuse to shave their legs without being a competitive endurance athlete.

lasalle · Post by **lasalle** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:57 pm

http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=53744&page=3

Nick WilsonThat's an interesting post Ewen, because it sounds like you're saying that the best approach for affiliates is to distance themselves from HQ - or at least, to not encourage their clients to look beyond the affiliate - lest those clients be exposed to HQ's "shenanigans" (great word!) I completely agree; if I were an affiliate I'd be embarrassed by what's happened recently and would hate for my clients to be exposed to it. However, this sounds a lot like some advice that was given at an infamous recent summit, and it really didn't go down very well with HQ...

Your line about clients ponying up for certs is particularly interesting. You're right that certs are where the "real money" is - for HQ at least. But the affiliate gets nothing. So essentially we've got a situation where affiliates should do their own thing and not drive their clients towards HQ (i.e. they do all the work themselves and essentially stand on their own two feet), in the hope that those clients then go and drop a wedge of cash on a cert for HQ to pocket? Not a great deal for the affiliate.

The problem as I see it is that CFHQ wants to keep as much control of the affiliates as possible (without appearing to, as this isn't a franchise after all), but affiliates are best served by keeping control themselves. And the more HQ tries to stamp its control on people (or punishes those it feels step out of line, whether by moderating their comments out, banning them from the forums, or revoking their affiliation), the more the affiliates will want to keep their distance.

Of course, a better idea might be for HQ to stop with the shenanigans in the first place, so that people didn't get so p*ssed off and the affiliates didn't have to feel the need to avoid any "guilt by association". If instead of complaining about "detractors" or trying to repaint the world without them, HQ would instead listen to and accept their points (or rebut them with facts instead of rhetoric / insults / spin), everyone would benefit. Sadly, it seems that HQ are unable or unwilling to listen to even constructive criticism so I really don't see this happening.

Apologies in advance if I've just got this thread closed; I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but it's a fairly obvious picture. If HQ really can't stand the thought of this stuff being discussed, then the problems are even worse than they currently appear.

Dale F. SaranNo, Nick, but it would be nice if you had actual facts to back up your claims. One of my favorite lines from law school (ever) by a law professor regarding argument:

"Whenever someone says 'clearly', or 'obviously', or 'self-evidently' - everything that follows that is totally unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable. If it weren't, you wouldn't need those words."

Since I don't recall you being on the cc: lines for any of the emails I had back and forth with Robb and Greg, or present for any of the stuff that led up to the BBS (I don't know if you were there for that), or otherwise involved in CF for the last 4 years, I'm wondering what you "know" so irrefutably? This isn't spin - this is an opportunity for both of us to grow if you've got something to offer beyond unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Now, my guess is, however, given your tone and lack of facts, that you don't care to be convinced of anything because you already "know", but I'm willing to listen and discuss this like adults. Let's give it a try.

Nick WilsonDale, to quote one of Glassman's recent tirades, that's "poor reading". Want to try again, and look for me using the words 'clearly', or 'obviously', or 'self-evidently' anywhere?

Guess what - you won't find them. Because I didn't use them. But you're trying to put them in my mouth, so that you've got an angle from which to disagree. If you'd care to read my posts through again with a less argumentative mental stance, you'll see me talking about appearances, my opinion, my view, and what things seem like to me. Not talking in absolutes and not trying to imply any inside knowledge.

What I'm talking about is the visible, public fallout from what's gone on, not the events themselves; and that IS something I can comment on, because I can see it myself, as can anyone else. Nowhere do I allude to hidden knowledge or imply I know the inner workings of everything. I'm commenting on the perception that more and more people are getting thanks to the visbile actions that HQ are taking. And your last post is a perfect example - you're not willing to discuss things civilly or entertain for a second that there might be any merit in it at all, you simply dismiss it with a wave of the hand and a quick "you don't know all the facts so STFU".

As for "unsubstantiated hyperbole" - hardly. Are you saying that no-one's comments have been moderated for being at all critical of Crossfit? Because I've seen them appear then disappear from the main page, the affiliate blog, and have had my own posts removed. Are you saying that people haven't been banned from the forums for criticising? Because I've seen people be banned for just that (even for comments they made on other forums, and for comments that don't violate the AUP of these forums). Hardly unsubstantiated, hardly hyperbole, and these are "actual facts" - even though I made no claims that need backing up.

So I'll say it again. If you'd accept that some criticism can sometimes be valid and constructive, instead of seeing it as a personal affront or dismissing it with a knee-jerk reaction, then you'd have a chance to improve things. I said I didn't think HQ was capable of this, and on your latest showing, it seems I may have been correct.

Finally, if you want to throw quotes around, I'll paraphrase your favourite since you like it so much: "Whenever someone says 'it's not spin' - everything that follows that is spin. If it weren't, you wouldn't need that disclaimer."

If you'd like to comment on what I actually wrote, instead of twisting it out of recognition so you can respond to what you wish I'd written, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, this is going to be quite pointless.

Gary John · Post by **Gary John** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:08 pm

They throw you out, keep on calling it x-fit.

Glasshole is in a serious financial bind, that is why they mau maued the affliliate cert.
Robb and Greg were considered fair game and were taunted intentionally.

Street gang tactics.

Oh, and the thread is really doing the Lord's work. I haven't contributed much, cuz I lack all the smart arguing skilz. For me, too many wasted pages of the same fucking pictures with one fucking comment.

Getting Glasshole and his bullshit out there is what I'm all about.

Danny John · Post by **Danny John** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:12 pm

This will all be a dissertation one day. This whole thing about "clearly" and "obviously" and how Dale just made it up is rather funny when you look right at the two texts next to each other.

IGX

The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread

Re: The couch thread