Is Your Trainer Asking You These Questions?

Merely asking questions should not be the sign of a good trainer....

MU wrote:
|| If not, and if he/she is not getting a recent medical history, dump
|| them. Mine are more extensive than this, the training interview last
|| at least one hour and can often involve spouses, family members,
|| input from physicians, etc.
||
|| What are your goals concerning weight and exercise? Do these seem
|| realistic to you?
||
|| What behavioral changes are you ready to make right now? (eg, give up
|| smoking, start an exercise program, change my eating habits)
||
|| Are there any behaviors you do not feel ready to work on right now?
||
|| Have you tried making lifestyle changes in the past? What has kept
|| you from succeeding in the past?
||
|| What are you willing to change to become successful this time?
||
|| Is there anything preventing you from exercising? (eg, unsafe
|| neighborhood, cost, access, support system)
||
|| Considering everything else going on in your life right now, is this
|| truly the right time to make a serious lifestyle change?
||
|| Can you set a specific date when you will be ready to begin?
||
|| Are you able to devote time each day (eg, 15-30 min) toward planning
|| and achieving your goals?
||
|| What do you need or want from others to help you succeed? (eg,
|| support from family and friends, enrollment in an exercise class,
|| transportation to and from Weight Watchers meetings, help with menu
|| planning)
||
|| Do you feel comfortable asking for help?
||
|| What are you willing to do right now? Let's discuss the specific
|| behaviors you are going to address first. How confident are you, on
|| a scale of 1-10, that you will be able to meet each of these goals?
||
|| How can I help you with this? (Provide referrals to other
|| specialists as indicated.)
||
|| Just in case it's needed, what kind of back-up plan can we develop
|| if your plans are not working as well as we hoped?
||
|| And last and perhaps most important, can you purchase a treadmill
|| and a dumbbell set (with a power rack close behind) with an
|| inclining bench. Will you have room for these in our domicile?

Roger Zoul said:

Merely asking questions should not be the sign of a good trainer....

It's the first sign, it should happen before you dole out $$$.

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

Quoted message said:

If not, and if he/she is not getting a recent medical history, dump them.
Mine are more extensive than this, the training interview last at least
one
hour and can often involve spouses, family members, input from physicians,
etc.

What are your goals concerning weight and exercise? Do these seem
realistic
to you?

What behavioral changes are you ready to make right now? (eg, give up
smoking, start an exercise program, change my eating habits)

Are there any behaviors you do not feel ready to work on right now?

Have you tried making lifestyle changes in the past? What has kept you
from
succeeding in the past?

What are you willing to change to become successful this time?

Is there anything preventing you from exercising? (eg, unsafe
neighborhood,
cost, access, support system)

Considering everything else going on in your life right now, is this truly
the right time to make a serious lifestyle change?

Can you set a specific date when you will be ready to begin?

Are you able to devote time each day (eg, 15-30 min) toward planning and
achieving your goals?

What do you need or want from others to help you succeed? (eg, support
from
family and friends, enrollment in an exercise class, transportation to and
from Weight Watchers meetings, help with menu planning)

Do you feel comfortable asking for help?

What are you willing to do right now? Let's discuss the specific behaviors
you are going to address first. How confident are you, on a scale of 1-10,
that you will be able to meet each of these goals?

How can I help you with this? (Provide referrals to other specialists as
indicated.)

Just in case it's needed, what kind of back-up plan can we develop if your
plans are not working as well as we hoped?

And last and perhaps most important, can you purchase a treadmill and a
dumbbell set (with a power rack close behind) with an inclining bench.
Will
you have room for these in our domicile?

My trainer wears leather and carries a whip. She doesn't use big words like
"domicile".

Drop dead, you freaking cross-posting idiot

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
<<drivel, drivel, drivel ...>

culture

Unilatateral Empire or
global democracy
"Liberating Iraq"?
Complete hypocrisy
Liberation by vulture.

On September 25, 1997, ABC used its news magazine program 20/20
to take an unusual journalistic step. In the first segment of the
program, Peter Jennings took pains to discredit documents that
had been about to be used by its own contracted reporter for an
upcoming show scheduled for broadcast. The contracted reporter
was Seymour Hersh. The documents purported to show a secret deal
involving Marilyn Monroe, Sam Giancana, and President John F.
Kennedy. They were to be the cornerstone of Hersh's upcoming
Little, Brown book, The Dark Side of Camelot. In fact, published
reports indicate that it was these documents that caused the
publisher to increase Hersh's advance and provoke three networks
to compete for a television special to hype the book. It is not
surprising to any informed observer that the documents imploded.
What is a bit surprising is that Hersh and ABC could have been so
naive for so long. And it is ironic that ABC should use 20/20 to
expose a phenomenon that it itself fueled twelve years ago.

What happened on September 25th was the most tangible
manifestation of three distinct yet overlapping journalistic
threads that have been furrowing into our culture since the
Church Committee disbanded in 1976. Hersh's book would have been
the apotheosis of all three threads converged into one book. In
the strictest sense, the convergent movements did not actually
begin after Frank Church's investigation ended. But it was at
that point that what had been a right-wing, eccentric, easily
dismissed undercurrent, picked up a second wind-so much so that
today it is not an eccentric undercurrent at all. It is accepted
by a large amount of people. And, most surprisingly, some of its
purveyors are even accepted within the confines of the research
community.

The three threads are these:
1. That the Kennedys ordered C

thus "the supreme Law of
the Land" according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. At the
Nuremberg prosecution, the gist of the charge against the Nazi leaders
for committing a Crime against Peace was based upon their wanton
violation of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, to which Germany was a
party. Several Nazi leaders were later condemned and hanged at Nuremberg
for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. In other words, the
governments of the United States and the United Kingdom hanged Nazis at
Nuremberg for engaging in the same type of reprehensible behavior that
Bush Jr. and Blair did against Iraq. To be sure, I personally oppose the
imposition of the death penalty upon any person for any reason, no
matter how monstrous their crimes might be -- including Bush Jr., Blair,
Bush Sr., McNamara, Kissinger,59 Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic,60
Sharon, etc. So much for the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact being
conveniently categorized as a "phantasm" and Nuremberg being
pejoratively labeled as "soft law" by imperialist American international
lawyers and professors. Dead Nazis at Nuremberg disproved those
propositions. Since that time, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and
Principles have served as the legal core of, and precedent for
establishing, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia in 1993, the Internation

some events that -
without this precis - seem to take place in a vacuum: motiveless,
random, out of place; yet in Exner's case, recurring at regular
intervals. As we shall see the promulgators of the following, are
very aware of the results of the Church Committee.

Exner To The Rescue

The committee had found that Hoover had a meeting with President
Kennedy on March 22, 1962. Through his investigation of Sam
Giancana, the Director had discovered that an acquaintance of his
- Campbell - had called Kennedy at the White House on numerous
occasions. Once Kennedy was told of this, the calls to the White
House stopped. Campbell's name was included in the first draft of
the report. But in deference to her privacy and the fact that she
denied ever communicating any messages between the two, the
committee - by a unanimous vote - did not name her in the final
draft. She was referred to there as a "close friend." Some
staffers, perhaps the CIA plants to which Marchetti referred,
leaked her name to the Washington Post. Significantly, four days
before the final report was issued, the Post printed her name in
an article about her. This did the trick. The

Marengo said:

Drop dead, you freaking cross-posting idiot

You do realize that you Xposted your post, you freaking cross-posting
idiot. lol

I see I have my own troll now. A nazi-sympathizer, no less! Well, maybe her
mother will catch it copying and pasting nazi [censored] off the Internet, spank
her, and put her to bed. -- dt

"Daven Thrice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:Re5sc.152%re.22@fed1read06...

Quoted message said:

thus "the supreme Law of
the Land" according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. At the
Nuremberg prosecution, the gist of the charge against the Nazi leaders
for committing a Crime against Peace was based upon their wanton
violation of the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact, to which Germany was a
party. Several Nazi leaders were later condemned and hanged at Nuremberg
for violating the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. In other words, the
governments of the United States and the United Kingdom hanged Nazis at
Nuremberg for engaging in the same type of reprehensible behavior that
Bush Jr. and Blair did against Iraq. To be sure, I personally oppose the
imposition of the death penalty upon any person for any reason, no
matter how monstrous their crimes might be -- including Bush Jr., Blair,
Bush Sr., McNamara, Kissinger,59 Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic,60
Sharon, etc. So much for the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact being
conveniently categorized as a "phantasm" and Nuremberg being
pejoratively labeled as "soft law" by imperialist American international
lawyers and professors. Dead Nazis at Nuremberg disproved those
propositions. Since that time, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment and
Principles have served as the legal core of, and precedent for
establishing, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia in 1993, the Internation

Daven Thrice said:

I see I have my own troll now.

Don't flatter yourself. It is an automated attempt to flood
news.admin.net-abuse.email, conducted by an entity known as Hipcrime.

You did notice that you were posting into news.admin.net-abuse.email
when you replied, right?

--
Kevin S. Wilson
Tech Writer at a university somewhere in Idaho
"When you can't do something completely impractical and intrinsically
useless *yourself*, you go get the Kibologists to do it for you." --J. Furr

MU wrote:
|| On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:09:11 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
||
||| Merely asking questions should not be the sign of a good trainer....
||
|| It's the first sign, it should happen before you dole out $$$.

Yeah. It's a technique to make someone who really has no credibility seem
credible. After they've got your $$$, those questions go in the gargage
can.

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

Quoted message said:

If not, and if he/she is not getting a recent medical history, dump them.
Mine are more extensive than this, the training interview last at least

one

Quoted message said:

hour and can often involve spouses, family members, input from physicians,
etc.

<snip>

Not that I would want a personal trainer, but I would prefer a personal
trainer who was not a control freak.

"Daven Thrice" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:lVjud.1082$ve.813@fed1read06...

Quoted message said:

I see I have my own troll now. A nazi-sympathizer, no less!

You have a spammer robot attacking news.admin.net-abuse.email
Do not reply to the posts cross posted to that group

Roger Zoul said:

MU wrote:
|| On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 16:09:11 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
||
||| Merely asking questions should not be the sign of a good trainer....
||
|| It's the first sign, it should happen before you dole out $$$.

Yeah. It's a technique to make someone who really has no credibility seem
credible. After they've got your $$$, those questions go in the gargage
can.

Not sure what you mean but here is how I do it. Much like when you go to
the Dr, you have a patient sheet that accompanies you into the visit room.
Before he does anyhing, he usually reviews it. It goes where you go. Same
with training. Clipboard, workout, client sheet. Returned at end of
session.

the Moderator said:

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

Quoted message said:

If not, and if he/she is not getting a recent medical history, dump them.
Mine are more extensive than this, the training interview last at least

one

Quoted message said:

hour and can often involve spouses, family members, input from physicians,
etc.

<snip>

Not that I would want a personal trainer, but I would prefer a personal
trainer who was not a control freak.

Then you would get what is out there. Semi-literate cheerleaders for the
most part.

an editor at Random House, one Bob
Loomis, got in contact with him and promised him cooperation from
the CIA with the book. This explains how Posner got access to KGB
turncoat Yuri Nosenko, who was put on a CIA retainer in the late
seventies. At the time of Posner-mania, Alan Houston wrote Mr.

Loomis, who also edited the Posner book. In a reply dated
10/27/93, Loomis revealed much about himself:
I have no doubt that you really believe what you are saying, but
I must tell you that your letter is one of the best indications
I've seen yet as to why the American public has been misled by
ridiculous conspiracy theories.

You have proved nothing insofar as I can see, except for the fact
that you simply can't see the truth of the situation. My feeling
is that it is you and others like you who have perverted the
historical record and, in an inexcusable way, pardoned the
murderer.

Readers of Probe know that Loomis is not a new pal of the CIA. In
our Watergate issue (Vol. 3#2), we wrote about the long,
controversial career of journalist James Phelan, a strong
supporter of the Warren Commission and harsh critic of Jim
Garrison and his "wacky conspiracy theories." Phelan always
strongly denied he was compromised in any way. Even when
confronted with documents showing connections to government
agencies (like the FBI) he still denied it. When Phelan did his
book on Howard Hughes-which completely whitewashed the ties of
the eccentric billionaire to the CIA-that "instant" book was a
top secret p

now
believe that Hersh's stories were part of Colby's campaign to
oust Angleton, sanctioned by the CIA Director himself.

Next up for Hersh was the story of the downing of KAL 700. This
was the curious case of the Korean Air Liner shot down over
Russian air space after having drifted off course. Many suspected
that, as with the My Lai case, there was more here than met the
eye. The long length of time that the plane had been off course,
as well as its failure to respond to signals, led some to believe
that the Russians had no choice but to shoot down the plane. In
fact, many articles appeared, for example in The Nation, to
support that thesis. The Reagan administration wanted to portray
the incident as an example of Soviet barbarity (shades of
Basulto's Brothers to the Rescue). They, and specifically Jeanne
Kirkpatrick, treated the downing as a great propaganda victory.
In his book, The Target Is Destroyed, Hersh ended up siding with
the administration.

Which brings us to the nineties. Everyone knows that the broad
release of Oliver Stone's JFK in 1992 put the Kennedy
assassination back into play. The pre-release attack against the

his book a collection of "sleaze." Summers fought back by
saying that Hoover and De Loach were peddling "sex tapes" about
Martin Luther King to the press. At that point, if Larry King
weren't such a stiff, he would have stepped in and noted, "But
Tony, we expect that kind of thing from a guy like Hoover. What's
your excuse?"

So Where are the Kennedys?

In a deeper sense, it is clear now that no one in the major media
was or is "protecting the Kennedys." The anti-Kennedy genre has
now become self-sustaining. Summers used the Collier and Horowitz
book for Goddess. He even uses Priscilla McMillan to connect JFK
with Monroe! (p. 244) Will Liz Smith call him on this? Will Ben
Bradlee? Far from "protecting the Kennedys" the establishment
shields these writers from potentially devastating critiques. The
reason being that the Kennedys were never part of that
establishment. No one protected JFK in Dallas. No one protected
RFK in Los Angeles. The ensuing investigations did everything
they could to protect the true murderers; to hell with the
victims. And since the Church Committee showed in public that the
Kennedys were not business as usual, there has been an intense
and incessant effort to reverse that verdict; in essence to
rewrite history. People like Slatzer, Davis, and now Hersh have
made their living off of it.

The Kennedys themselves deserve part of the blame. In Samuels'
article in The New Yorker, Kennedy family lawyer Myer Feldman
says that he advised the Kennedys not to even comment on Hersh,
let alone sue (p. 69). If I were advising, I would have urged a
lawsuit as far back as 1984 with both the Collier-Horowitz book
and the Davis book. I would have loved to hear how the two former
leftists had no idea t

that is the way the
Muslim world sees it. Remaking "world order" in America's imperialist
image, while fomenting world disorder in the process. In this relentless
quest and insatiable lust for oil and gas around the world, the United
States Power Elite is now in the process of destroying the entirety of
the international legal order that had been established by a predecessor
elitist generation running the United States government in the aftermath
of and in reaction to the genocidal horrors of the Second World War.33
Including and especially the United Nations Charter, as well as the
Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, inter alia. All of which
had heretofore been the bedrock upon which the entirety of the
post-World War II international legal order rested.34 Nazi Ideology

Iraq had been continuously and illegally bombed by the United States and
the United Kingdom since the end of the Bush Sr. Gulf War in 1991 under
the pretext of enforcing unauthorized and clearly illegal no-fly
zones.35 But in order to accomplish their objective of seizing Iraq
outright, the Bush Jr. warmongers had to articulate another operational
rationale for a war of aggression that they could then sell to the
American People and Congress that was separate and apart from their
fatuous "war against international terrorism."36 So they resurrected the
long-ago discredited Nazi doctrine of "preventive warfare," once again
using the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001 as a pretext for doing