How can we *really* help our fellow runners?

On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 12:25:55 -0000, "apusapus" <[email hidden]> wrote:

<Snip>

Well strangely enough for the most part I would agree with you. Trolls have a hard time
giving damaging information if they give no information at all. Comments like "Quit running
tubby" are not only not damaging physically, but on some level may be true. This is also
presented in a manner that the OP can recognize it as a slam. The only incidences from
trolls that I've found a bit concerning are the "You should go out and run 6 miles as fast
as you can" type post. Posting something like this to a beginning runner whose is asking for
advice on how to figure out a running pace is a bit dangerous. Particullarly when the OP's
longest run is just short of 800yds. To those of us with a little experinace realize it as a
troll. A runner with no experiance may not. I'm sure many, if not all, of the "usefull
posters" have posted something that is factually incorrect and potentially damaging. The
question is then is the information disseminated on the order of a general mistake or
"running information malpractice". I hope that any one coming to any newsgroup would
understand that any information obtained is obtained at ones own risk. Keeping that in mind
how do you know that all of the "usefull posters" you speak of aren't REALLY good trolls,
simply playing with you and yours?

~Matt

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

Quoted message said:

Keeping that in mind how do you know that all of the "usefull posters" you

speak of aren't REALLY good trolls, simply playing with you and yours?

Precisely.

So where do we go from here? Where is the validity in a newsgroup that purports to provide useful
advice to new members of the running community, yet provides no verification of the safety of that
advice? At least if it's in a book you have access to the author through the publisher. On
rec.running advice comes from *anyone*. The provision of a valid email address provide no guarantee
as to the quality of the response.

Round about NOW Doug jumps in with his caveat. But that's the point, dear Douglas, if you have
little or no knowledge of a subject exactly of what do you beware? Everything? And if that's the
case, why come here at all?

Roger.

In article said:

Can the same be said of our 'useful' contributors?

Listening To Runners' Thinking: The Useful/Useless Knowledge A Runner Gathers
c.2001 Austin "Ozzie" Gontang, Ph.D. & Yunkyu Kim

Nitejogger wrote:

The following is a summation of the information I've gleaned from news articles, web sites and so
on. (I don't know whether they are scientifically proven or not. I don't even remember where they
came from.)

1. The less you eat the longer you will live. (At least this is true for the mice)
2. Food intake and digestion cause inevitably oxidation of human body cells.
3. This accelerates aging.
4. Exercise on regular basis is beneficial but in extreme, exercises can over-oxidate your body.
(Such as professional athletes.)
5. Even worse, extreme exerciser needs more calories. This means more food intake. See #2.

I used to run 40 ~ 50 miles a week. (This is winter so I've slowed down a little bit... 20 ~ 25
miles a week) I know many people in this newsgroup (rec.running) run over 60 miles a week. That's
not the distance that the ordinary people usually run, I guess.

So.... Are we (tens of miles a week runners) getting extra wrinkles on our faces and a shorter
longevity? I hope we are not. What do you think?

nj.

Dear nj,

I'm one of those people you like to have on your team in Trivial Pursuit or Tribond. There is a
quote that I've liked because it makes me feel that I have some value: The value of a man can be
measured by the amount of all the useless information his mind contains. Mine contains a lot.

I derive that thinking from my readings of Taoism especially the stories of Chuang Tzu. I don't
profess to understand much. I do know that wisdom and knowledge can block one's understanding. One
reason all I can share is my folklore. If it works use it. If not, move on.

One story that touches the mark of how people respond when asked what they think is the story of The
Useless Tree.

Hui Tzu, who loved to debate and one up Chuang Tzu, said to him:

There's a large ailanthus tree on my property You know the one I mean: the "stinktree." The tree's
trunk is so grotesque Misshapen and full of knots A master carpenter couldn't cut A straight board
with all his skill. It's branches so gnarled and twisted You can't align them with a square In any
way that would be orderly.

Let it grow by the roadside. No carpenter, not even a master craftsman, Would give it a thought or
consideration.

Your teachings are just the same - Big and utterly useless So everyone disregards them.

Chuang Tzu thought a moment and replied: Have you ever observed a wildcat or weasel As it lies in
wait? See it hunch, Half hidden eyeing its prey - Then in a flash it pounces Jumping this way and
that Springing high and low, until it is Snared by the net, caught Soon to be killed and skinned

Ah, but look at the yak? Mighty as the roiling clouds of a thunderstorm He stands powerful, a sign
of strength. Big? Yes. But it doesn't know how to catch rats.

About that "stinktree" you have. Useless? Then go out and plant it in the badlands In the barren
desert. Leisurely relax against its trunk, Use its shadow to rest under A haven for all passing by.
No saw or axe plans its demise If there's no use for it, How can it come to any grief?

Useless, you say. {i.7.}

6. The researcher (Woldrop, Walthrup at UCLA or was it USC?) who studied the mice allowed the
control group to eat freely and the experimental group was fed every other day and diet was
controlled. At the end of the study, the experimental group of mice were more healthy, more
active and didn't seem to have aged as much as the control group which where fat and happy.
Happy here being a relative term. In the end I believed they were all sacrificed for the sake
of science.

That same researcher was involved as part of the crew that went into the Biosphere to live
for a year.

2 & 3. Tom Bassler back in the early 80's was writing about free radicals, transfatty acids, and
marathoners being immune from death by heart attacks for up to 8 years after running a marathon. Tim
Noakes and Tom had a great discussion back in 1976 at the New York Academy of Sciences Marathon
Symposium. Tim drew from his experiences with the deaths of marathoners that contradicted Tom's
hypothesis. Tom arrived at much of his findings and hypotheses from his work as a pathologist,
experiment-of-one and avid runner.

7. The research at the Cooper Center under the guidance of Steve (Last name begins with B, I think)
showed that even with minimal exercise heart attacks can be reduced by as much as 50%.

Also regular exercise is beneficial based on (a) cardiovascular health,
(b) lowered percentage of unnecessary body fat, and (c) an increase, maintenance or slowing down of
the loss of bone density.

c. Heart is a bloody muscle. Work it out and exercise it through aerobic activity and it
is healthier

d. Normal or ideal percent body fast keeps one away from the diseases caused by obesity: e.g.
diabetes which is one of the fastest growing diseases among US children today.

e. Think about it. Muscles pull on tendons. Tendons pull on bone where tendons attach. When you
pull on a tendon, it pulls on the bone. The bone receives a message: Hey, the tendon is trying
to pull away from
ea. I'd better lay down some more cartilage, put down a little more calcium so that it won't pull
away. So that continual stimulation of the muscles pulling on tendon and tendon on bone
stimulates the body to put down more calcium in the bone to make it stronger so that the tendon
won't pull away.

5. Regarding the extreme exercise. Young women who stop their periods because of extreme exercise
lose their bone density at a fairly high rate. Bone scans has shown women in the 20's and 30's
who were without their periods for several months to several years can have the bone density of
women in their 70's and older.

I know that if someone overtrains to the point of exhaustion they will sustain more injuries. They
will tax their immune system and be more open to getting sick. Once someone has gone over the edge,
it often takes 6 months to a year or more for them to recuperate. Once over the edge it is a long
journey to get back to their level of peak performance.

Their climb back contains much agony and soulful pain to get back to the level where their mind and
body had formerly been. This says nothing about the state of their psyche/soul/spirit. This is an
area where over the years I have been privy to the inner journey or dark night of the soul of many
of these overachievers. I have been honored to attend or be present as they recovered their sense of
being that was destroyed by their overdoing. For some the recovery was never to happen.

We individuals are only small echoes of what myth and history have given us. Pride, arrogance,
challenging the gods and denying the limits of humanity, being swept away, going unconscious are the
shadow and dark side of ourselves we wrestle with all the time. Adalanta, Prometheus, Odysseus,
Sisyphus, Samson, Richard M Nixon, William Jefferson Clinton are our teachers and our coaches and
our mentors. Positive or negative they are here to teach us about ourselves.

It makes one wonder about James Hillman's concept that in the acorn is contained the mighty oak. Did
Manolete hide behind his mother's apron as a child knowing he would be facing a 1200-pound bull? Did
Winston Churchill have trouble as a child speaking knowing that he would have to inspire with words
a country on the edge of total destruction?

I always come back to the same point where I started my run. No matter how far I run, in a sense I
never get anywhere. It is about non-judgment. Reality always wins, our only task is to get in touch
with it. When queried about being useful or useless, good or bad, right or wrong, positive or
negative. I return to where I started.

It's not useful or useless It's not right or wrong. It's not positive or negative. It's not good or
back. It just is.

So I am neither valuable or valueless since I don't know if what I have in my mind is useful
or useless.

And what did you think about on your run today?

In health and on the run, Ozzie Gontang Maintainer - rec.running FAQ Director, San Diego Marathon
Clinic, est. 1975

Mindful Running: mindfulness.commr.aspOpen ↗ faqs.orgrunning faqOpen ↗

MJuric said:

he only incidences from trolls that I've found a bit concerning are the "You should go out and run
6 miles as fast as you can" type post. Posting something like this to a beginning runner whose is
asking for advice on how to figure out a running pace is a bit dangerous. Particullarly when the
OP's longest run is just short of 800yds. To those of us with a little experinace realize it as a
troll. A runner with no experiance may not.

I would put forth that the human race is better off without anybody whose stupid enough to
go do that.

apusapus said:

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

Quoted message said:

Keeping that in mind how do you know that all of the "usefull posters" you

speak of aren't REALLY good trolls, simply playing with you and yours?

Precisely.

So where do we go from here? Where is the validity in a newsgroup that purports to provide useful
advice to new members of the running community, yet provides no verification of the safety of
that advice?

I would suggest that validity of individual advice comes with experinace in this situation. I
suspect and or hope that someone somewhere has used some of the information that I've spewed forth
here. I'm also assuming that if that information has worked on some level for them they may have a
bit more "trust" in some of the other information I may spew forth. I know that some info some
people place here is not usefull for my purposes. Other info is. I've found thru experiance I can
use info from some and not from others. ANY person coming here should come here with a skeptical
mindset. ANY info recieved should checked, double checked, and triple checked. This can be done via,
books, friends , doctors other sights or a plethora of other sources.

Quoted message said:

At least if it's in a book you have access to the author through the publisher. On rec.running
advice comes from *anyone*. The provision of a valid email address provide no guarantee as to
the quality of the response.

Frankly the idea that any information from any source is not questionabale is ridicuolous. I've
spent more than a few appointments at the doctors office were I've walked away with information
that I knew was faulty. Simple credentials or lack of ananomity does not make for infalilable
information.

Quoted message said:

Round about NOW Doug jumps in with his caveat. But that's the point, dear Douglas, if you have
little or no knowledge of a subject exactly of what do you beware? Everything? And if that's the
case, why come here at all?

Yes BEWARE OF EVERYTHING. <Looking over shoulder> I question why this has to even be stated. We
should question everything. Even every day functions we question in one way or another. However the
answer to questions are fairly readily thru personal experiance. Any information, particularly that
which can't be verified thru other information which you already have, should be verified. The
problem is verifing information is hard. It's much easier to just accept it.

I'm surprised you would ask the question of why come here. In order of importance.

1) Entertainment
2) Entertainment
3) Exchange of ideas
4) Entertainment
5) Information
6) Entertainment
7) Entertainment
8) Entertainment
9) Entertainment
10) Advice

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Roger.

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

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised you would ask the question of why come here. In order of importance.

Quoted message said:

1) Entertainment
2) Entertainment
3) Exchange of ideas
4) Entertainment
5) Information
6) Entertainment
7) Entertainment
8) Entertainment
9) Entertainment
10) Advice

Whilst I would agree, it would appear that we may be in a minority of two (or three if you count
Wobbot - personally I try not to).

What makes me laugh is how the 'wise and the serious' (Timmy, Prozac, Rebekki, global cd, et al)
react to their 'advice' being questioned. Oz, at least, has enough common sense to view these
matters with a grin and a shrug and carry on regardless.

Roger.

apusapus said:

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

Quoted message said:

I'm surprised you would ask the question of why come here. In order of importance.

Quoted message said:

1) Entertainment
2) Entertainment
3) Exchange of ideas
4) Entertainment
5) Information
6) Entertainment
7) Entertainment
8) Entertainment
9) Entertainment
10) Advice

Whilst I would agree, it would appear that we may be in a minority of two (or three if you count
Wobbot - personally I try not to).

What makes me laugh is how the 'wise and the serious' (Timmy, Prozac, Rebekki, global cd, et al)
react to their 'advice' being questioned. Oz, at least, has enough common sense to view these
matters with a grin and a shrug and carry on regardless.

I would agree that some are a bit more "sensitive" about being questioned than others, IMO anyone
who truely thinks they are "above" questioning should be questioned all that much more vehimently.

OTOH defending ones "belief" in ones advice is one area that discussion forums like R.R. excel in. I
do believe that some, myself included, take this a bit to far. Others occasionly revert to rather
unbecoming tactics, but to each his own.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Roger.

Quoted message said:

How can we *really* help our fellow runners?

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Keeping that in mind how do you know that all of the "usefull posters" you

speak of aren't REALLY good trolls, simply playing with you and yours?

Precisely.

So where do we go from here? Where is the validity in a newsgroup that purports to provide useful
advice to new members of the running community, yet provides no verification of the safety of that
advice? At least if it's in a book you have access to the author through the publisher. On
rec.running advice comes from *anyone*. The provision of a valid email address provide no
guarantee as to the quality of the response.

Let's see, by the time you manage to contact an author thru their publisher, it may be several days.
And if the answer is more than just a canned response, you are very lucky. But you really cannot
verify it was the author and not their publicist or secretary that answered you.

If I read a response here from a regular poster, I may be able to get more detail by emailing or
posting a followup. I can check that they are who they claim, by checking posted race results. I can
go back in GOOGLE and see their posting history. (can't be done for trolls that morph their address
almost daily, no history implies lower validity.) So just an email address doesn't help, but it is a
door to the history of that poster.

Now this is an issue for almost any newsgroup (less so for groups under talk.* or soc.*). Roger, you
are at least good at posing important questions. Perhaps what hasn't been mentioned here in a long
time is the suggestion on how to join a newsgroup. (Because of GOOGLE and other news group front
ends, some posters never see the news.newusers group which has more good advice on this topic.) In
general new readers should:

* browse the group for a while, trying to get a sense of the culture, the appropriate topics, and
other group specific quirks.

* it's also helpful to find and read the group's FAQ and/or charter

* then when comfortable that you know the groups general rules and temperment, feel free to post as
appropriate.

By following those basic guidlines, new readers can get a sense not only of the general rules, but
often the temperment and views of regular posters. That's where Doug's tag line becomes clear.

Quoted message said:

Round about NOW Doug jumps in with his caveat. But that's the point, dear Douglas, if you have
little or no knowledge of a subject exactly of what do you beware? Everything? And if that's the
case, why come here at all?

Roger.

Some posters do come here and before even reading one message, compose their first post. These
indeed may be baffled by the responses (especially if trolls like "Bill the..." are involved!) But
if we follow your analogy, these are like folks that write to question an author before even reading
the author's book!

Some posters venturing here, getting the abusive responses (from trolls and occasionally others),
may decide to never post here again. Do they stop their running questions? Do they stop their
running? Do they follow any advice posted in response to them? We'll likely never know. So I
conclude that any "good" advice packaged with those trollish replies are NOT in the end useful to
either the OP or to the group.

So, no Roger, trolls do not have any moral highground here.

Now as for whether regular posters advice is useful. I have two basic comments then I'll watch
the replies.

First, as is often said here and needs said again: we are each an experiment of one. What works for
me may not work for you. What's important to me may be garbage to you.

When I personally reply to a posting with advice, I give it in this context. You'll notice I do not
contribute to HR threads because while I tried one, I did not like using it, and so have little
experience to base comments on. I have experienced dehydration and often comment on that topic
(learning about the other extreme, hyponatremia, and other important things in those threads.)

Second, this is a group of mostly ametuers. But I would suggest that if there were six running
coaches in this group, you might get a similar range of opinions as you do from the regulars here.
The track coach is going to suggest things different than the cross country coach, the marathon
coach, the triathlon coach, or the other track coaches.

So don't try selling the snake oil of abusive troll posts as a blessing from the gods. Form
follows function. The form of abusive posts reveals their function: to disuade folks from posting
to the group.

In closing, Roger, if you really are a runner and enjoy those trophies you claim to get, remember it
is the race registration of back of the pack runners like me that paid for those niknaks.

Enjoy the run. Ed

apusapus said:

z, at least, has enough common sense to view these matters with a grin and a shrug and carry on
regardless.

Don't kid yourself, after reading this he takes a handfull of barbituates, and runs down the strret
naked screaming "help me, help me".

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

<egotism snipped>

Quoted message said:

<accusations snipped>

Quoted message said:

Point being, it's rarely *intent* that determined the usefulness or validity of our contributions
to rec.running, it's how accurately we address the concerns of the OP. Taking a moment to
establish exactly what the OP seeks will pay benefit both in the relevance of the reply and the
quality of information provided.

Kind of intersting coming from the guy who's most frequent reply is "Google" it and you'll find
your answer.

In short, if we understand what's being asked, we're

Quoted message said:

more likely to provide useful and appropriate information to the questioner.

No [censored] Sherlock. I've seen plenty of replies that state "without more information I really can't
give you a better answer". However you are missing the point of newsgroups, they are dialogues that
should not be abrupt. Newsgroups rely on question and answer and question and answer and question
and answer.... Until the original subject is totally lost.

Quoted message said:

My observations suggest that it's only the trolls that fully understand the importance of this
procedure. As this is the case, I propose that y'all butt out for a week or two and leave the
newsgroup to me.

Naw I have an opinion and my experience is easily as valid as your experience is.

Andy

(TheRacker) said:

Quoted message said:

How can we *really* help our fellow runners?

Now there's something that runners don't ordinarily get either.

In short, I feel that trolls are the ONLY

Quoted message said:

participants on rec.running than can hold their heads high, secure in the knowledge that their
advice has not had a negative impact upon the running career of another soul.

Hey at least peopel have something they know is wrong if it came from you. No one is as dumb as you.

. As this is the case, I propose that y'all

Quoted message said:

butt out for a week or two and leave the newsgroup to me.

Roger.

So I can continue to bash you and show the world what a stupid [censored] you are.

"> What makes me laugh is how the 'wise and the serious' (Timmy, Prozac,

Quoted message said:

Rebekki, global cd, et al) react to their 'advice' being questioned. Oz, at least, has enough
common sense to view these matters with a grin and a shrug and carry on regardless.

Roger.

You only wish you had some of thier wisdom. Youare a fat ass tubby trying to hang with the real
runners and failing. It really explains your trolling and anger when out trolled. Typical for a
Deepcut style bully.

Just for the record, I'm sorry if anyone in here actually got themselves sterilized when I suggested
how Utopia-like our society could become after voluntary jogger spaying had a chance to take
root.......Oh, and the same goes for if any of you drank Drano for relief of your leg cramps, as I
may or may not have suggested previously. Regards, Anne

(Matthew Mazerowski) said:

You only wish you had some of thier wisdom. Youare a fat ass tubby trying to hang with the real
runners and failing. It really explains your trolling and anger when out trolled. Typical for a
Deepcut style bully.

When I poked Roidger in the butt, he said it was big and fat because "the more cushion, the better
the pushin".

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

<nonsense snipped>

<twaddle snipped>

<numptiness snipped>

Oops! Nothing left!

Roger.

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

Your reply was mainly waffle interspersed with silliness, so I shall not trouble myself by replying.
However, this caught my eye:

Quoted message said:

In closing, Roger, if you really are a runner and enjoy those trophies you

claim to get, remember it is the race registration of back of the pack runners like me that paid for
those niknaks.

Firstly, the trophies produced nowadays are mainly chrome-coated plastic junk. I remember the days
when a trophy - even one that was 'for keeps', not an annual award that had to be returned the
following year - was made of metal and there was evidence of *some* degree of craftsmanship in its
construction. When you Jimmy Joggers rolled along, the whole thing was dumbed-down and plastic
trophies became the norm.

Secondly, you Jimmy Joggers are *actually* paying for all the [censored] I could well do without. I don't
need a t-shirt, a medal on a gaudy ribbon, a goody bag, fancy waterproof numbers, chip timing, and
'aid station' every 500 m, 1,439 marshals, or a pace car. I need a clearly marked course, marshalled
appropriately, and a bunch of guys to race against. A place to shower and change at the race finish
would be nice. You mindless buffoons have turned many races into a media circus and lycra-clad
family funtime experience. And for this you expect my thanks?

Roger.

apusapus said:

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

<nonsen..

???