General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Establishing Basic Form

Started by Natalie · · Last activity · 31 posts · 679 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
15 November 2004
Last activity
24 November 2004
Original author
Natalie
Posts
31
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
679
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–31 of 31
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. David's reflections echo the dialoging about running form and style
    that has taken place at rec.running over the past 10 years. For me,
    ChiRunning has captured these same concepts very well. Especially if
    you use the DVD. Erect posture. Lean from the ankle. Using the hips.
    Quick cadence to assist in training the runner to run more lightly.

    Natalie, it's by playing with your running and quick cadence that
    you'll discover all the little nuances of running lightly and quickly
    over terra firma.

    In health and on the run,
    Ozzie Gontang
    Director, San Diego Marathon Clinic, est. 1975
    Maintainer - rec.running FAQ
    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/running-faq/
    Mindful Running:
    http://www.mindfulness.com/mr.asp

    In article <[email hidden]>, SwStudio

    Quoted message said:

    My stride rate is in the low 180's when training and low
    190's when racing these days.

    I remember it was here on this group that I found out about
    the optimal stride. At the time I was running in the low 170's.
    I remember excitedly going out for a run and trying to speed
    up my stride to hit 180/minute. I remember those days of
    trying so many things to improve. I'm not trying to advocate
    anything one way or the other; you both have raised good
    points. Still, I can vividly remember that run from a few
    years ago, trying to hit a cadence of 180.

    And then upon doing so I had a sort of small revelation,
    realizing that in my attempt to quicken the steps I had
    subconsciously shortened my stride a bit, and this in turn
    had set in motion a few little changes, such as less of an
    overstride and a new appreciation of my center of gravity,
    in terms of footstrike timing relating to what's going on with
    the rest of my body at that moment. It was a bunch of
    subtle things that really, profoundly changed my form.
    All from rec.running discussion.

    cheers,
    --
    David (in Hamilton ON)
    www.absolutelyaccurate.com
    www.allfalldown.org

  2. Ozzie Gontang <[email hidden]> blathered in message
    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    David's reflections echo the dialoging about running form and style

    I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to pick
    people up on their solecisms.

    But "dialoging"? WTF?

    "David's reflections echo the DIALOG (or DIALOGUE for British English
    readers)/CONVERSATION/EXCHANGE/DISCUSSION about running form and
    style."

    If Usenet's about anything, it's about communication. You really
    aren't being efficient if you resort to such ugly neologisms.

  3. Get a life dipstick.

  4. Quoted message said:

    From: [email hidden] (Will)

    Quoted message said:

    I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    important,

    No, but some sort of contribution to, oh, perhaps *running* typically is
    important.

    Mike C

  5. Will said:

    I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to pick
    people up on their solecisms.

    Comma splices? WTF?

    tkb

  6. [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
    the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

    In article <[email hidden]>, Will

    Quoted message said:

    Ozzie Gontang ,,, blathered in message ...

    Quoted message said:

    David's reflections echo the dialoging about running form and style

    I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to pick
    people up on their solecisms.

    But "dialoging"? WTF?

    "David's reflections echo the DIALOG (or DIALOGUE for British English
    readers)/CONVERSATION/EXCHANGE/DISCUSSION about running form and
    style."

    If Usenet's about anything, it's about communication. You really
    aren't being efficient if you resort to such ugly neologisms.

    Will,

    Actually my spelling of the word was incorrect. It should have been:
    dialoguing or dialogging. From your first judgment by the use of
    "blathered" and then the choice of picking up on my solecism
    (nonstandard gramatical construction) was your solecism (a violation of
    etiquette).

    I do blather at times and not sure what you were considering babble or
    nonsense in my response to Natalie.

    While I accept that dialogue would have been a better word for me to
    use, would you accept the use of a gerund (spelled correctly of course)
    as a verbal form ending in -ing and used as a noun while conveying the
    meaning of the verb?

    Regarding the mispelling I stand corrected. Regarding the use of the
    gerund, I'll think about it during my running and will reflect if my
    thinking on the matter needs correcting.

    Thanks, it was a good dictionary exercise.

    I like the distinction between dialogue, which I prefer to use, and
    discussion. Discussion has the same derivation ad concussion or
    percussion: a hitting up against. In a discussion I am attempting to
    persuade you that your perspective or thoughts on an issue are
    incorrect and mine are correct.
    In a dialogue, each of us makes our assumptions as visible as possible
    and the dialogue is built upon the shared assumptions to help arrive at
    a point that creates value for both of us.

    I appreciated David's post that shared his experience and learning from
    the dialogues and discussions on running issues and developed by
    playing with the ideas in his running.

    In health and on the run,

    Ozzie Gontang

  7. "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Will said:

    I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to pick
    people up on their solecisms.

    Comma splices? WTF?

    You need to throw out those tired old style manuals - no-one gives a
    [censored] about comma splices any more.

    Will.

  8. Will said:

    "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Will said:

    I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to pick
    people up on their solecisms.

    Comma splices? WTF?

    You need to throw out those tired old style manuals - no-one gives a
    [censored] about comma splices any more.

    Maybe *you* don't care. However, modern grammar still frowns on comma
    splices. I'll be happy to accept your correction, if you can prove
    otherwise.
    Is "no-one" a word? Maybe it is in Will's style manual. ;-)

    tkb

  9. "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Will said:

    "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Will wrote:

    > I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or grammar as
    > important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to pick
    > people up on their solecisms.

    Comma splices? WTF?

    You need to throw out those tired old style manuals - no-one gives a
    [censored] about comma splices any more.

    Maybe *you* don't care. However, modern grammar still frowns on comma
    splices. I'll be happy to accept your correction, if you can prove
    otherwise.

    Ah, you are a presciptivist and I claim my five pounds.

    Quoted message said:

    Is "no-one" a word? Maybe it is in Will's style manual. ;-)

    It's a variant - almost unheard of in the US but much more usual in
    the UK (whence I write). See the fourth example here:

    <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53830&dict=CALD&desc=no%20one>

    Will.

  10. Will said:

    "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Will said:

    "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    > Will wrote:
    >
    > > I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or


    grammar as

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to


    pick

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > people up on their solecisms.
    >
    > Comma splices? WTF?

    You need to throw out those tired old style manuals - no-one


    gives a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    [censored] about comma splices any more.

    Maybe *you* don't care. However, modern grammar still frowns on


    comma

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    splices. I'll be happy to accept your correction, if you can prove
    otherwise.

    Ah, you are a presciptivist and I claim my five pounds.

    I have no idea what presciptivist is. However, if you meant
    "prescriptivist," then you may be correct.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is "no-one" a word? Maybe it is in Will's style manual. ;-)

    It's a variant - almost unheard of in the US but much more usual in
    the UK (whence I write). See the fourth example here:


    <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53830&dict=CALD&desc=no%20one>

    That makes sense now. You also used "any one" instead of "anyone." Is
    that a UK variant as well?

    tkb

  11. "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Will said:

    "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Will wrote:
    > "TenKBabe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > Will wrote:
    > >
    > > > I know this isn't a newsgroup that regards spelling or


    grammar as

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > important, and it's generally regarded as bad netiquette to


    pick

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > > > people up on their solecisms.
    > >
    > > Comma splices? WTF?
    >
    > You need to throw out those tired old style manuals - no-one


    gives a

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > [censored] about comma splices any more.

    Maybe *you* don't care. However, modern grammar still frowns on


    comma

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    splices. I'll be happy to accept your correction, if you can prove
    otherwise.

    Ah, you are a presciptivist and I claim my five pounds.

    I have no idea what presciptivist is. However, if you meant
    "prescriptivist," then you may be correct.

    Yeah, yeah, very funny. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Actually google
    culpa for not employing the services of a spellchecker. Nonetheless,
    are you a prescriptivist? It'a a very unfashionable position these
    days, though I have to say that I veer more towards it than
    descriptivism, which seems to be happy to give the nod to such dogs as
    "dialoguing", notwithstanding how Ozzie wants to spell it.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is "no-one" a word? Maybe it is in Will's style manual. ;-)

    It's a variant - almost unheard of in the US but much more usual in
    the UK (whence I write). See the fourth example here:


    <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=53830&dict=CALD&desc=no%20one>

    That makes sense now. You also used "any one" instead of "anyone." Is
    that a UK variant as well?

    Well of course it is, though I should look twice at "any-one"!

    Will.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.