IGX

Ballsucker Sevan wrote:Why would he jump higher than 1/2 an inch, if the movement is just to get your feet off the ground ?

It is a perfectly efficient jump.

Kraj wrote: Another thing: I know Pavel catches slack on here too but I'm really taken aback by the differences between Pavel and Glassman. Pavel, for as long as I've known about him and DD, has been a consumate professional. I've never seen him put anyone down or make himself look like a dick, even when he had plenty of opportunity and motive. Glassman, on the other hand, is a totally unprofessional douche who acts like the world is his lockerroom and we're just junior varsity geekbags compared to his senior varsity quarterback self. How he runs ANY organization is beyond me. He must have a really good staff and a shitload of meth to feed those tattooed freaks.

Kraj wrote: Glassman, on the other hand, is a totally unprofessional douche who acts like the world is his lockerroom and we're just junior varsity geekbags compared to his senior varsity quarterback self. How he runs ANY organization is beyond me. He must have a really good staff and a shitload of meth to feed those tattooed freaks.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:This insurance notion is interesting from a business perspective. Here are a bunch of questions.

From what I've read here, the $500,000 is to capitalize the insurance company. The insurance itself will then be extra. Do you think the affiliates understand this? Also, if you're an initial paid-in member, are you liable for additional cash calls?

Has anyone seen what the insurance will cover, or what its limits are, or what it will cost. Also, will it provide an umprella for catastrophic coverage if say someone drops the barbell on his head after an umpteenth thruster and seriously injures himself? A catastrophic injury case can easily run into seven figures for defense and settlement.

Have they explained whether the insurer or the affiliate will be able to decide whether to settle and for how much? Will everyone with a cert be able to buy the insurance, or will they require some sort of quality control.

Hebrew Hammer wrote:This insurance notion is interesting from a business perspective. Here are a bunch of questions.

From what I've read here, the $500,000 is to capitalize the insurance company. The insurance itself will then be extra. Do you think the affiliates understand this? Also, if you're an initial paid-in member, are you liable for additional cash calls?

Patrick Donnelly wrote:Would anyone like to buy my old "CrossFit: Forging Elite Fitness" t-shirt?


I've been posting it on Craig's List since I was banned, hoping to get rid of it, but no luck. I really had no desire to wear it for the past several months, but now that I'm banned, wearing it would just be plain awkward, especially in situations where I might meet other CrossFitters who actually know that I'm banned (eg. weightlifting meets). Anyway, I don't want it, but I can never bring myself to throw away things that have a good monetary value. I paid $27 (including some outrageous shipping fee) or so for it originally, for some reason I couldn't quite tell you now. It seemed like a good way to spend money at the time.

It's one of the styles they don't sell anymore (a collector's item!). Now you either have to get one with very bland text or with all sorts of "badass" images on them.


I'm asking $12 + S&H. That offer is valid for any of you guys, or the CrossFitters secretly reading over this thread.


I'll even autograph it for you if you'd like.

Email me. [email protected]

Patrick Donnelly wrote:Would anyone like to buy my old "CrossFit: Forging Elite Fitness" t-shirt?

The Bastard Son of the Shafman wrote:Pavel vs Glassman:

I know being "classy" got him in hot water with some, but you cannot say he is his own worst enemy.

Much appreciated rest day as the SDHP got me an awful surprise ... hemorroids :(

Was able to do the WOD of shoulder press but couldn't squat in the warm up ...

Hope it's going to be ok soon !
Comment #5 - Posted by: Tou at April 28, 2009 5:27 PM

Resident Quack wrote:Another reason not to do sumo DL high pulls, or maybe he just got the rookie @F hazing of the "no lube" treatment :
http://www.crossfit.com/mt-archive2/004650.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If any of you REALLY care about the science behind creationism (I suspect you don’t or you would already know this) there is plenty out there to be found. I’ve attended a science conference that had on site evidence that discredited many Darwinism ‘evidences’.

Some examples:
A 6 foot long mineral stalactite growing in the basement of a house built in the 1960’s- these are ‘supposed’ to take thousands of years to develop and have been used to date archeological findings- obviously inaccurately.

A fully fossilized human foot-in a cowboy boot! I don’t think they had Stetsons (or humans) 2 million years ago.

Human footprints along side dinosaur footprints- both fossilized in the same sedimentary layer.

There were 3 days of lectures and examples, I’m recalling from memory so forgive any inaccuracies but you get the idea. If your argument is that these examples are not ‘observable AND testable’ then I would counter that archeology must not be science? Is Darwinism observable and testable?

OK so I’m not going to get in to a debate about this. First, it’s off topic and I don’t want to hijack the rest day discussion. Second, I’m not confident in my knowledge to back up argument with facts (logic maybe, but I’m no reference book). Third, I know I won’t change anybody’s mind here so what is the point?

All I’m saying is this (and perhaps more to the point of the article): what we are led to believe is ‘science’, is very often just one politically motivated point of view (there is some truth to the cliché of ‘follow the money’).
True science is unbiased, therefore if you are quick to dismiss any thing because it doesn’t fit in your current belief system, then you have made your science your religion. I happen to believe as humans we are ALL guilty of this. It is the process in which we learn. We must always process new data in relation to what we already know as a reference point in order to understand it, therefore we ALL have biases toward that new data vs. what we have already learned. Only through the overcoming of these biases and humble evaluation of new information can we learn beyond our past influences.

The Bastard Son of the Shafman wrote:I get quite a chuckle out of the deliberately ignorant born agains and @F combination.

If any of you REALLY care about the science behind creationism (I suspect you don’t or you would already know this) there is plenty out there to be found. I’ve attended a science conference that had on site evidence that discredited many Darwinism ‘evidences’.

Some examples:
A 6 foot long mineral stalactite growing in the basement of a house built in the 1960’s- these are ‘supposed’ to take thousands of years to develop and have been used to date archeological findings- obviously inaccurately.

A fully fossilized human foot-in a cowboy boot! I don’t think they had Stetsons (or humans) 2 million years ago.

Human footprints along side dinosaur footprints- both fossilized in the same sedimentary layer.

There were 3 days of lectures and examples, I’m recalling from memory so forgive any inaccuracies but you get the idea. If your argument is that these examples are not ‘observable AND testable’ then I would counter that archeology must not be science? Is Darwinism observable and testable?

OK so I’m not going to get in to a debate about this. First, it’s off topic and I don’t want to hijack the rest day discussion. Second, I’m not confident in my knowledge to back up argument with facts (logic maybe, but I’m no reference book). Third, I know I won’t change anybody’s mind here so what is the point?

All I’m saying is this (and perhaps more to the point of the article): what we are led to believe is ‘science’, is very often just one politically motivated point of view (there is some truth to the cliché of ‘follow the money’).
True science is unbiased, therefore if you are quick to dismiss any thing because it doesn’t fit in your current belief system, then you have made your science your religion. I happen to believe as humans we are ALL guilty of this. It is the process in which we learn. We must always process new data in relation to what we already know as a reference point in order to understand it, therefore we ALL have biases toward that new data vs. what we have already learned. Only through the overcoming of these biases and humble evaluation of new information can we learn beyond our past influences.

Common symptoms include:

* a lack of feeling, empathy, or concern for others
* a willingness to take advantage of others
* excessive feelings of self-importance
* exaggerated personal achievements and abilities
* an expectation to be seen as superior without cause
* a fantasy or is preoccupation with power, wealth, beauty, personal abilities, or success
* a demand for favorable treatment without appropriate reasons
* an insiststance on being the object of admiration and attention.

Narcissism and Reality Conflicts

The self-importance characteristic of narcissism and the narcissist's demand for preferential treatment will inevitably come into conflict with reality. Narcissists are adept at explaining discrepancies between reality and their self-image, but occasionally circumstances shake the narcissist's belief in his superiority. When this happens, the person may become enraged, experience feelings of emptiness, or develop clinical depression.

Diagnosing Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Seeking treatment for narcissism is rare. The narcissistic individual sees nothing wrong with his or her narcissism; to narcissists, their "natural" superiority is obvious to them, and therefore should be obvious to all.

...

In accordance with the DSM-IV, a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder is considered when five or more of the following criteria are present:

* has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) We can do what you do almost as well as you, you can't do what we do at all, and we can do what neither of us do better than you."
* is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love "Laying siege to the fitness industry."
* believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) This website serves aims that can hardly be comprehended or appreciated by the overwhelming majority of the posters here"
* requires excessive admiration Kiss his gin scented decoder ring or face excommunication.
* has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations "And now that you have seen the 3rd fittest man on the planet do them, are you going to defend your position or learn something new?"
* is interpersonally exploitative (i.e. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends) Jeff Martone, Josh Everett, Burg, Rip, Tate, etc.
* lacks empathy, i.e. is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others No need to get into this.
* is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her See Pavel, Boyle, Twight, Dan John, Poliquin, etc.
* shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. Hmm, not sure about this one.

From the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

what we are led to believe is ‘science’, is very often just one politically motivated point of view (there is some truth to the cliché of ‘follow the money’).