The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

[dianaclass8]

Gary, my answers below:

Thanks for filling me in on the history of the Freezone conventions. I believe that Ray Robles is putting on the 2011 convention.

***I heard that it is going to be in Las Vegas.

It is helpful to know that there was no committee in 2009 or the prior years.

***There was no committee on 2009 either, the Convention committee was me, myself and I

I don't know how you would expect me to know that.

***It was all over the internet, they spoke about the convention for the rest of the year because it was a lot of fun and a lot of people came.[/B]

Its all brand new news to me in your above post. I thank you for posting it. Back in 2009, I was pretty new on ESMB and just learning the ropes. I did not attend the conventioin nor read anything about it.

****Candy Swanson attended the opening of the convention and she is in one of the videos in my youtuchannel and she was a guest speaker.

I was never in the Freezone.

***The Freezone nowdays stand for anyone who does Scn or it's derivates outside the Church....it was originally called the 'Independent Field' 20 years ago.

I did subscribe to IFACHAT but dropped it because it was too mild for my tastes. In 2010, I watched 3 or 4 of Roger's videos made for that convention.

***Yes, I invited Roger who gave us the honor to come all the way from New York and talk about his research in the area of GPM, he was one of the most liked guest speakers at the convention.

My point still remains unaffected by this new information. The key point now is that if the Person (not the committee) who put on the 2009 Freezone Convention had the right to edit the keynote speaker's videos, which she obviously did, then the Freezone still gained promotional value by having a well known figure speak at their 2009 Convention.

I am the person who put the convention and no, i did not have the right to decide anything on the videos because a friend did me the favor to video it, but then he did not give me the rights to do whatever I wanted to do, all the editing and everything else was done by the owner of the videos, I learned my lesson and now I make sure I own any video I am on. And I did not gain any promotional value from the convention, as I really gave no speeches, I was only running the show, the ones who gained are those who are on the videos, thanks to me.

Essentially, every word in my quoted post remains valid. All one has to do is to replace the words "Freezone Committe" with the word "Aida" and the entire post is updated and is correct as it stands.

***Yes, Aida Thomas aka Diana Class 8 if you please

So far tonight, I learned newly that Roger's posts were edited to remove some negative comments about LRH and that there was no Committee but that Aida ran the show as an individual.

***Again, I have no rights over the videos unfortunately, so I have no say to what should be edited or not.

Also that Ray Robles had started the annual conventions, about 8 years earlier. It is good to learn all this history and structural background but none of these things change in the slightest way the point which I was making in my original post.

I don't know why it is so hard for certain people to see this. I make a comment which is sound. An Organization gains promotional value if they retain a well known speaker as their keynote speaker. I stand by that. A lot of new info has been introduced into the mix but none of it has anything to do with changing my premise. Maybe, since there was no committee, I should replace the word "Organization" with "Association" or "The Freezone Association" Consider it done.

I am sorry, lost in translation and I have not kept with all of the posts in this thread.

"An Association gains promotional value if they retain a well known speaker as their keynote speaker." "This is guaranteed if the head of the Association has carte blanche when it comes to editing the keynote speaker's videos."

**No, it does not. The owner of the video does, for example those videos done at my house on the 4th of July where I was gracious enough to set up for Tatiana, are hers and she can do, edit or publish as she pleases and I have no say on it, even though it was done in MY house with MY friends, with ME as the interviewer and ME as one of the interviewed...and since I have no control over the videos and they were posted on Tatiana's Youtube channel, so now The Oracle, Hild Coatman a woman from England (long story) and Louise Marquis (under a fake nick) who is some degraded being who probably is servile to OSA, are all using Tatiana's youtube channel to trash me and I asked Tatiana to remove those incediary posts, she said that she would not hear of it as she believes of freedom of speech, which to me that is not really freedom of speech she is allowing people to use her channel as a platform for vendetta against me...and there is nothing I can do about this.....So Tatiana is now allowing SPs and OSA bots to use her channel to try to damage my reputation. As far as I am concerned Tatiana is very unethical and she will never be welcome at my house again.

I warned Candy about this, but she still went ahead and did the videos with Tatiana and since she does not own them she is at the mercy of whoever owns them....

Here is the website for Louise Marquis:

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/louise-marquis.html

This is all that I am saying. Many interesting facts concerning the Association involved have been brought to light which are brand new to me. I am appreciative of being filled in on these things but they in no way have anything whatever to do with my original assertion.

The three lines directly above in bold type are all that I am saying. I stand behind those comments and believe that they are 100% true. I don't want to debate it any more. That is my opinion. I have the right to it and I believe it is 100% correct.
Thank you very much. Lakey

Just to let you know, the committee that organized the 2009 Convention was formed by me, myself and I...

I invited all everyone who had been in Scn and the purpose was to unite and maintain friendly relationships amongst the different groups that derivated from Scn...

Gary, you have been complaining about how you did not like the editing of some of the videos, then why don't you just video yourself and say whatever you wish and post it on youtube?

Diana

 

[dianaclass8]

Aida recorded all the speeches and edited them for the internet, especially those that went to youtube which typically require more extensive editing due to constraints. I am unfamiliar with what she eventually cut or why. She did comment about wanting to prune the 'dead air' out of all of the recordings. During the course of the conference in all of the talks there were periods where not much was actually happening in front of the camera or microphone. None of that 'dead air' was ultimately needed for the final videos. How much made it in ...???

Roger's talk was not exactly laced with cutting remarks about LRH. He spoke about matters of tech, not LRH. Such references as he made to LRH were substantially as they related to differences between his, Alan's, & Roger's respective views on various aspects of technical points. This was not exactly a lengthy polemic of flaming accusations and anecdotes of past misdeeds.

Roger might be able to supply specifics over any remarks he felt were snipped, but unless he received a raw recording from Aida I doubt he'll remember much as having been removed. I doubt that he'd care much either.

I don't recall anything about LRH that I thought was in any way much out of the ordinary from what you see on a relatively 'open' freezone board. Less inflammatory than some, actually. Certainly nothing was said as critical as the sorts of commonalities seen on clambake or ars. Even the few 'loyalists' present weren't exactly outraged and up in arms at what was said. One 'lrh only' person was a bit of a pain, although that's not bad given the size & diversity of the crowd we had.

As Roger has indicated, whatever his own differences with LRH & the scientology tech, he wasn't there to trash talk scientology or LRH. So, I suspect that nothing significant was likely lost in the editing process.

The good stuff is all there in the videos. I recommend watching them, especially Roger's.


Mark A. Baker

Again, I did not record the videos neither edited them, I asked my friend Ken as a favor to video the convention because the person that was going to video it originally could not make it and at the last moment Ken did it for me.

However, he did not give me the videos and he took over and onwed them and decided to do with them whatever he bloody well pleased I am grateful he videoed the convention but I am not grateful that I do not own and have no control over the videos of MY own convention

And then on top of that I was deemed responsible for the contents and the editing

I don't understand this persisting of Gary that trashing was edited. Nobody trashed LRH at the convention, that was not what the convention was for...sheesh!

Gary, dear, make a video and do say whatever you please about LRH and post it in your own youtube video.

Aida

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Again, I did not record the videos neither edited them, I asked my friend Ken as a favor to video the convention because the person that was going to video it originally could not make it and at the last moment Ken did it for me. ...

I stand corrected. Now that you mention it I remember that Ken was the one at the convention running the camera and you later expressed some concern at the length of time it was taking to get those videos back from him.


Mark A. Baker

 

[dianaclass8]

I stand corrected. Now that you mention it I remember that Ken was the one at the convention running the camera and you later expressed some concern at the length of time it was taking to get those videos back from him.


Mark A. Baker

Yes, I am still very unhappy that I do not own those videos and that are posted on another channel different than mine...and have no control over them and gained lots of criticism over something that was out my hands...

It is frustrating...sigh...

Diana

 

[Ted]

Monday Morning 2-Cents

I was asked, "Thanks for talking to me today. Will you be doing any auditing while in [the near future]?"


No.

I haven't done any serious auditing in ages. To me serious Scientology auditing means the Bridge.

My present perspective is that Bridge auditing is to life as methadone is to drug addiction. For some people it is a useful thing, for others it just puts them in a trap.

On the other hand, I will talk to anyone about anything in an effort to help--even using Scientology as a reference point.

 

[RogerB]

You obviously missed the point where Roger stated very clearly that his video had been edited to remove his negative comments about the hubbard.



Here's yer sign ... er ... shirt.

.....Image snipped out...................................

I did miss that point, it is useful knowledge that I need to know and I thank you for calling it to my attention. Nevertheless, it only reinforces my claim that if a well known person appears as the keynote speaker for an Organization, his presence there has some promotional value to the Organization and usually will lead to higher attendance at the lectures, heavier viewing of the videos than with a lesser known speaker, and more income and better "brand recognition" for that Organization.

Once again I refer to the initial negotiations between the Organization and its keynote speaker. The Organization can afford to give carte blanche to the speaker if the Organization gets agreement from the speaker that they can edit the videos in any manner they see fit. So you see, nothing of this sort has any effect on my initial comment that the speaker's presence has promotional value for the Organization. If the Organization has carte blanche to edit as they see fit then further agreements are not needed.
Lakey

Lakey,

You're a master at invention and dub-in . . . . .

Please leave me out of your efforts to be right . . . .

You have no idea whatsoever as to what the "negotiations" were between the folks who invited me and myself. And you have no idea as to what any "agreements" were as regards what or how I could present.

Just knock off the dub-in and interpretations . . . . .

Don't you get it? You wear your friends out when you keep chirping away about them . . . and your interpretations of what they say and do.

Take a look at the point that the folks you do this to/with are actually discussing a SUBJECT . . . you too often don't, but instead start chirping away on and about your interpretations of what you think they've said/done. I't YOUR think, your thing, you keep going on about, superimposed on the simple actuality.

Sometimes there is limited info in a post or area addressed, but that's the actuality . . . no sense in dubbing in something to fit your want or think.

Take a look at the subjects we address and contribute to that.

If I were to attempt to answer or respond to all the stuff you dub-in, I'd have no time for anything else.

Take a look at how Face and Toady responded to getting worn down and out by your constant interpretive skills . . . . .

Rog

 

[RogerB]

Aida recorded all the speeches and edited them for the internet, especially those that went to youtube which typically require more extensive editing due to constraints. I am unfamiliar with what she eventually cut or why. She did comment about wanting to prune the 'dead air' out of all of the recordings. During the course of the conference in all of the talks there were periods where not much was actually happening in front of the camera or microphone. None of that 'dead air' was ultimately needed for the final videos. How much made it in ...???

Roger's talk was not exactly laced with cutting remarks about LRH. He spoke about matters of tech, not LRH. Such references as he made to LRH were substantially as they related to differences between his, Alan's, & Roger's respective views on various aspects of technical points. This was not exactly a lengthy polemic of flaming accusations and anecdotes of past misdeeds.

Roger might be able to supply specifics over any remarks he felt were snipped, but unless he received a raw recording from Aida I doubt he'll remember much as having been removed. I doubt that he'd care much either.

I don't recall anything about LRH that I thought was in any way much out of the ordinary from what you see on a relatively 'open' freezone board. Less inflammatory than some, actually. Certainly nothing was said as critical as the sorts of commonalities seen on clambake or ars. Even the few 'loyalists' present weren't exactly outraged and up in arms at what was said. One 'lrh only' person was a bit of a pain, although that's not bad given the size & diversity of the crowd we had.

As Roger has indicated, whatever his own differences with LRH & the scientology tech, he wasn't there to trash talk scientology or LRH. So, I suspect that nothing significant was likely lost in the editing process.

The good stuff is all there in the videos. I recommend watching them, especially Roger's.


Mark A. Baker

Well, Mr. Baker, my precise Mr. Baker

The reason you don't particularly recall anything particularly derogatory I said about LRH, is because it didn't happen.

My exact words deleted were: "There are many who, today, criticize LRH, and he had his flaws . . . (and the clip continued with) but bless his heart, without him, I'd have probably ended up either a drunken bum on the beaches of Sydney, or in jail!"

So there's not much there to remember And certainly nothing terribly provocative or contentious . . .

What I do know, is that Ken who manned the video gear did have trouble with a jammed recording cassette . . . during the taping of me. It is possible, coincidentally, that this jamming occurred where that "abrupt edit appeared in the finished job."

Personally, I'm delighted with the job Ken did of the video. He's a good man . . . and I don't give a shit that maybe 5 words are missing . . . . you see, if you listen carefully to the video at that section, you'll observe the break is rather too abrupt and cuts some words in half . . . . . that would not be the case in an actual careful edit.

So no one ought rant on about the FZ "organization's" sensibilities and censoring of anything

And why did I go do it?

I was invited by some friends . . . don't you go to parties friends invite you to? But more important, it was the right thing to do . . . there are tech advances and corrections that anyone interested can benefit from. I wanted to pass them on.

And in case there is anyone hung up on the money shit . . . I don't do this stuff for money. Long, long ago I set to on the purpose of helping my fellows, and that is the simple why I post here and do what I can to benefit folks.

It's no more complicated than that.

Rog

 

[Ted]

[...]

My exact words deleted were: "There are many who, today, criticize LRH, and he had his flaws . . . (and the clip continued with) but bless his heart, without him, I'd have probably ended up either a drunken bum on the beaches of Sydney, or in jail!"

[...]

Credit where credit is due!

With or without the clipped ending, I get it, Roger. Excellent talk.

 

[RogerB]

Credit where credit is due!

With or without the clipped ending, I get it, Roger. Excellent talk.

Wheeww . . . a simple, pure, duplication, and ack of such.

That is what 2-way comm ought be!

Like I know I exist now, as I actually am rather than as interpreted!

A right item, at last!

Rog

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

texting acronyms for seniors

Are you trying to keep up with the kids? Are you texting for the first time?

We thought you needed help with texting your friends…after all, the kids have all their little codes…like BFF, WTF, etc.

Check it out!


So here are the codes for seniors:

ATD – At the Doctor’s
BFF – Best Friend’s Funeral
BTW – Bring the Wheelchair
BYOT – Bring Your Own Teeth
CBM – Covered by Medicare
CUATSC – See You at the Senior Center
DWI – Driving While Incontinent
FWBB – Friend with Beta Blockers
FWIW – Forgot Where I Was
FYI – Found Your Insulin
GGPBL – Gotta Go, Pacemaker Battery Low
GHA – Got Heartburn Again
HGBM – Had Good Bowel Movement
IMHO – Is My Hearing-Aid On?
LMDO – Laughing My Dentures Out
LOL – Living on Lipitor
LWO – Lawrence Welk’s On
OMMR – On My Massage Recliner
OMSG – Oh My! Sorry, Gas
ROFL…CGU – Rolling on the Floor Laughing…Can’t get Up!
TTYL – Talk to You Louder
WAITT – Who Am I Talking To?
WTFA – Wet the Furniture Again
WTP – Where’s the Prunes
WWNO – Walker Wheels Need Oil

Hope these help!

GGLKI – Gotta Go, Laxative Kicking in!



Read more: Texting Tips For Seniors! http://kearth101.radio.com/2011/04/11/texting-tips-for-seniors/#ixzz1JEYwDaOK

 

[lkwdblds]

Again, I did not record the videos neither edited them, I asked my friend Ken as a favor to video the convention because the person that was going to video it originally could not make it and at the last moment Ken did it for me.

However, he did not give me the videos and he took over and onwed them and decided to do with them whatever he bloody well pleased I am grateful he videoed the convention but I am not grateful that I do not own and have no control over the videos of MY own convention

And then on top of that I was deemed responsible for the contents and the editing

I don't understand this persisting of Gary that trashing was edited. Nobody trashed LRH at the convention, that was not what the convention was for...sheesh!

Gary, dear, make a video and do say whatever you please about LRH and post it in your own youtube video.
Aida

Diana, I do not have any idea what was edited. Some other poster yesterday mentioned that the videos had been edited. Mark then made some comments to that person and Mark referenced an earlier posting of his, I believe #11,795, where he had mentioned it as well. That was the first I new that editing had occurred. I do not know how much editing took place or what was edited out. Mark knows way more about that than I do.

My only comment was that if the head of the Freezone had the right to edit the videos then there was no risk to the Freezone if Roger said anything bad about LRH which the Freezone would not agree with. I just came up with this concept yesterday and in the early morning hours of today, it was pointed out to me that I was wrong in the assumptions I was making. I have just typed up a retraction about the edits and am posting it right after I sign off here.

After I post my retraction, I will go back and review those first two posts above where I first learned about the editing which occurred and post that as well.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

In response to Diana's very recent post!

Diana, thank you for your kind and informative reply! Your reply does cause me to change my post and make a retraction but before I do so, I want to cover a little history of how we got to this point...

Originally I made the point that Roger is more moderate than Toady and his associates in dealing with those of us who still find parts of Hubbard’s tech useful and do not consider Hubbard himself totally evil. I know this to be true for me. I have had extensive written dialogues with both gentleman and know that Roger is much more civil than Toady and all of his associates save for “Gottabrain”. THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, NO MORE AND NO LESS. I realize that while this is true for me, it may not be true for others.

To help make my point that Roger was more moderate than Toady, I cited the fact that Roger spoke at the 2009 Freezone convention. Toady and his associates do not take kindly to the Freezone and its members. They object to newly leaving Scientologists and brand new public being introduced to Scientology tech out in the Freezone. Here again, I know this to be true after debating these people for 5 solid weeks on Sharone’s thread “What Candy Swanson says about LRH”

I did not NEED to use the example of the 2009 Freezone convention to make my point but I chose to do it just to drive my point home. It turned out that doing this did not work out for me personally in some ways, making me more enemies but on the other hand, in order to correct me, a lot of “new' (for me) information and history was revealed about the Freezone and it's 2009 convention.

I made the following statement to drive home my point:”An association gains promotional value if they retain a well known speaker as their keynote speaker. This is guaranteed IF the head of the Association has carte blanch when it comes to editing the keynote speaker’s videos.”

I ASSERT THAT THIS STATEMENT IS STILL TRUE! I do not have to retract it, the last clause of the statement gives me an out, i.e. “if the head of the Association has carte blanche when it comes to editing……..”

Diana, you now have pointed out that you did not have carte blanche when it came to editing, instead, all the editing was done by the owner of the videos...

My statement or assertion above is true but it does not apply to the 2009 Freezone Convention because, even though you were the head of the Freezone Convention, you DID NOT have carte blanche when it came to editing the videos. Therefore, I am doing a retraction in admitting that my assertion does not apply in your case.

I want to say more about the other things which you told me and will do that in my follow up post.

Thank you so much for clearing up this matter for us.
Gary

 

[Auditor's Toad]

Lakey,

You're a master at invention and dub-in . . . . .

Please leave me out of your efforts to be right . . . .

You have no idea whatsoever as to what the "negotiations" were between the folks who invited me and myself. And you have no idea as to what any "agreements" were as regards what or how I could present.

Just knock off the dub-in and interpretations . . . . .

Don't you get it? You wear your friends out when you keep chirping away about them . . . and your interpretations of what they say and do.

Take a look at the point that the folks you do this to/with are actually discussing a SUBJECT . . . you too often don't, but instead start chirping away on and about your interpretations of what you think they've said/done. I't YOUR think, your thing, you keep going on about, superimposed on the simple actuality.

Sometimes there is limited info in a post or area addressed, but that's the actuality . . . no sense in dubbing in something to fit your want or think.

Take a look at the subjects we address and contribute to that.

If I were to attempt to answer or respond to all the stuff you dub-in, I'd have no time for anything else.

Take a look at how Face and Toady responded to getting worn down and out by your constant interpretive skills . . . . .

Rog

Rog, you are so much kinder and gentler than I.
This post so covers what I sincerely feel.
Thank you !

....

And to Lakey :

Carry on Commodore !

 

[lkwdblds]

Aida recorded all the speeches and edited them for the internet, especially those that went to youtube which typically require more extensive editing due to constraints. I am unfamiliar with what she eventually cut or why. She did comment about wanting to prune the 'dead air' out of all of the recordings. During the course of the conference in all of the talks there were periods where not much was actually happening in front of the camera or microphone. None of that 'dead air' was ultimately needed for the final videos. How much made it in ...???

Roger's talk was not exactly laced with cutting remarks about LRH. He spoke about matters of tech, not LRH. Such references as he made to LRH were substantially as they related to differences between his, Alan's, & Roger's respective views on various aspects of technical points. This was not exactly a lengthy polemic of flaming accusations and anecdotes of past misdeeds.

Roger might be able to supply specifics over any remarks he felt were snipped, but unless he received a raw recording from Aida I doubt he'll remember much as having been removed. I doubt that he'd care much either.

I don't recall anything about LRH that I thought was in any way much out of the ordinary from what you see on a relatively 'open' freezone board. Less inflammatory than some, actually. Certainly nothing was said as critical as the sorts of commonalities seen on clambake or ars. Even the few 'loyalists' present weren't exactly outraged and up in arms at what was said. One 'lrh only' person was a bit of a pain, although that's not bad given the size & diversity of the crowd we had.

As Roger has indicated, whatever his own differences with LRH & the scientology tech, he wasn't there to trash talk scientology or LRH. So, I suspect that nothing significant was likely lost in the editing process.

The good stuff is all there in the videos. I recommend watching them, especially Roger's.


Mark A. Baker

Your opening sentences which I highlighted in red are in complete error. According to what Diana Class 8 has just posted here, Aida did not personally record the videos but retained someone else to do so. Also, the owner of the tapes edited as he/she saw fit and Aida had no control over editing whatsoever.

The rest of your post is very informative and helpful.

I watched 4 of Roger's videos last year and thought they were all excellent. I remember several instances where he mentioned that LRH did well in starting certain areas of research but then did not complete them or perhaps went off in another direction Roger would present what had been done since in a positive manner and also referenced LRH witnout bitterness or animus. Of course that is just my memory. With my memory and $1.75, you could buy a cup of Starbucks.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

"To help make my point that Roger was more moderate than Toady, I cited the fact that Roger spoke at the 2009 Freezone convention. Toady and his associates do not take kindly to the Freezone and its members. They object to newly leaving Scientologists and brand new public being introduced to Scientology tech out in the Freezone. Here again, I know this to be true after debating these people for 5 solid weeks on Sharone’s thread “What Candy Swanson says about LRH”

Lakey I sincerely hope you achieve the ability to make your point without making shit up.

I'm starting to realize that you are not aware you are doing it - and that is freaky scary !

You said your auditing cured you of your compulsive blabbing, prove it : Would you please please please leave me out of your posts?

 

[CarmeloOrchards]

The Most Dangerous Thing You'll Do All Day

By Bill Phillips and the Editors of Men's Health
Mar 30, 2011


by Bill Phillips and the Editors of Men's Health
Recent Posts
The 5 Biggest Fitness Mistakes
8 Drugs You Don’t Have to Take
More Articles »
We stand around a lot here at Men’s Health. In fact, a few of us don’t even have office chairs. Instead, we write, edit, and answer e-mails—a lot of e-mails—while standing in front of our computers. All day long. Why?

It all started last summer, when Assistant Editor Maria Masters came across a shocking study in the Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise (one of dozens of research journals we comb each month as we put together the magazine). Scientists at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana analyzed the lifestyles of more than 17,000 men and women over about 13 years, and found that people who sit for most of the day are 54 percent more likely to die of heart attacks.

That’s right—I said 54 percent!

Masters immediately called the lead researcher at Pennington, a professor named Peter Katzmarzyk. Turns out, this wasn’t the first study to link sitting and heart disease. Similar research actually dates back to 1953, when British researchers found that (sitting) bus drivers were twice as likely to die of heart attacks as (standing) trolley operators.

Here’s the most surprising part: “We see it in people who smoke and people who don’t,” Katzmarzyk told Masters. “We see it in people who are regular exercisers and those who aren’t. Sitting is an independent risk factor.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter how much you exercise or how well you eat. If you sit most of the day, your risk of leaving this world clutching your chest—whether you’re a man or women—as much as doubles.


This raised a rather obvious question: Why? Truth is, the researchers aren’t sure. But Marc Hamilton, Ph.D., one of Katzmarkzyk’s colleagues, suspects it has to do with an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase (LPL), which breaks down fat in the bloodstream and turns it into energy. Hamilton found that standing rats have ten times more of the stuff coursing through their bodies than laying rats. It doesn’t matter how fit the rats are; when they leave their feet, their LPL levels plummet. Hamilton believes the same happens in humans.

Still sitting? Then you should know that your office chair also:

1. Screws up your posture. The fascia, the tissue that connects individual muscles into a full-body network, begins to set when you stay in one position for too long, says Men’s Health advisor Bill Hartman, P.T., C.S.C.S., a physical therapist in Indianapolis. If you’re hunched over a keyboard all day, this eventually becomes your normal posture.

2. Makes you fatter. This happens for two reasons. First, you burn 60 more calories an hour when standing versus sitting. But more importantly, says Hartman, when you spend too much time sitting, your largest muscle group—the glutes (a.k.a. your butt)—become lazy and quit firing. This is called gluteal amnesia. And it means you burn fewer calories.

3. Causes lower back pain. Weak glutes push your pelvis forward, putting stress on the spine, says Hartman. Here’s the other unseemly thing that happens when your pelvis tilts forward: Your belly protrudes, making you look 5 months pregnant.


So what’s a desk-bound worker to do? First, Hamilton suggests you change how you think about fitness. We have a tendency to segment our lives—work, home, and downtime. Exercise falls into the last category, something we squeeze into our busy schedules when possible. But if you stop thinking about exercise as an activity, and instead think of it as a lifestyle, it’s easier to make healthy choices throughout the day.

In other words: Stop trying to be fit, and start trying to live fit.

Second, of course, is to stand more throughout the day. These strategies will get you up on your feet more often:

Strategy #1: Take two breaks an hour. Grab a drink from the water fountain. Pop over to the cube next door to say hi. Or simply stand and stretch for a minute. A European Heart Journal study of 5,000 men and women found that the quarter who took the most breaks during the day were 1.6 inches thinner than the quarter who took the least.

Strategy #2: Stand during phone calls. It may seem like a small thing but, as Hamilton told Masters: “Small choices will help move you in the right direction. . . . It all adds up, and it all matters.”

Strategy #3: Don’t write long emails. If crafting an email will take longer than 15 minutes, go talk to the person instead. Or stand up and call them.

And if that’s not enough (and it may not be) . . .

Strategy #4: Ask HR for a standup desk. Australian researchers found that workers who log more than 6 hours of seat time a day are up to 68 percent more likely to be overweight. If you make the changes above and your waistline isn’t shrinking, a standup desk may be the answer. Make sure the screen is at arm’s length, and the top at eye level. Position the keyboard so your elbows are bent 90 degrees. Men’s Health Senior Editor Bill Stieg built his own. Check it out.

 

[lkwdblds]

How about this title?

Olska is suggesting you have an addiction......posting on the internet syndrome?

Maybe Olska has ...... analysis syndrome.

Olska's just trying to get your goat.

Or did Olska really post this about you? I didn't read Olska's post.

How about this for a title, Posting on the Internet Stress Syndome? abbreviated as PISS?

Maybe Olska is a goat, like the one on the AFLAC commercial when the company couldn't afford AFLAC and hired another insurance company with a goat as its mascot. The goat seemed to be able to understand English and answer everything by saying, Nah.

Seriously, my 23 year old daughter came over to visit me yesterday. She graduated UC Santa Barbara with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology and told me that AD, short for Arrested Development is the standard diagnoses used for an older person who acts childlike or like a teen ager.

I told my daughter that I act that way knowingly. I could be serious and somber if I want to be and occasionally I will behave in that manner with certain people but in general, that is not who I am. My daughter said that it did not matter. The next sentence I am going to reveal, I am releasing in confidence so do not spread this around.

My daughter told me that she thought Olska's analysis was spot on correct.

This is what me and my ex sacrificed $100K for to send our daughter to University? My daughter also says that I look every bit my age of 71 and she and Olska are the only one's I know who have said that.

Well, when Olska tells me something, I am going to ignore it but when my daughter agrees. That got my attention. Fun and Games.
Lakey

 

[Auditor's Toad]

CO, sounds like you might be warning those who are prone to long posts may soon not be with us ?

PS - my timer goes off every 15 minutes and I have to get up and walk a lap around the house.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Sounds more like a pickpocket than a mugger. Afterall, the potential for mugging only became a threat after you responded with an humiliating public denunciation of his choice of avocation.


Mark A. Baker

True dat. But he was a fucktard criminal in any event and he got what everyone gets who tangles with me.

Reminds me of the ...umm...perspicacious individual who said to me "you've got a tiger by the tail" because my efforts to defend myself on OCMB were not dissimilar to my approach to the pickpocket...and I'm thinking, um...no, you guys are the ones who have a tiger by the tail.

 

[Auditor's Toad]

How about this for a title, Posting on the Internet Stress Syndome? abbreviated as PISS?

Maybe Olska is a goat, like the one on the AFLAC commercial when the company couldn't afford AFLAC and hired another insurance company with a goat as its mascot. The goat seemed to be able to understand English and answer everything by saying, Nah.

Seriously, my 23 year old daughter came over to visit me yesterday. She graduated UC Santa Barbara with a Bachelor's degree in Psychology and told me that AD, short for Arrested Development is the standard diagnoses used for an older person who acts childlike or like a teen ager.

I told my daughter that I act that way knowingly. I could be serious and somber if I want to be and occasionally I will behave in that manner with certain people but in general, that is not who I am. My daughter said that it did not matter. The next sentence I am going to reveal, I am releasing in confidence so do not spread this around.

My daughter told me that she thought Olska's analysis was spot on correct.
This is what me and my ex sacrificed $100K for to send our daughter to University? My daughter also says that I look every bit my age of 71 and she and Olska are the only one's I know who have said that.

Well, when Olska tells me something, I am going to ignore it but when my daughter agrees. That got my attention. Fun and Games.
Lakey

And, fellow posters, I ask you this :

Do you get your visiting family to look at what somebody said about you on a fucking chat board?

Or, in real life, do you run around sharing your online life ?

Which leads me to :

Is being online and what other posters say about you really the most important thing in you life?