I like it. All we need now is a GUS Magazine :-P

That's funny because I was just correcting this and then you commented on it. You must be watching the page. What about a magazine?

A GUS fitness magazine would sound pretty cool to me. Except that supposedly print media is "old".

Shoot I got enough to do.

This is true. Just take it as a compliment that I think more people should be reading this stuff.

Oh I do! It's more of a "wish I could do so much more" response. If you feel that way though then the best way to help would be to recommend the newsletter to people. That, in effect, is the "magazine". Just not print. The more subscribers the more issues, to put it bluntly. I'm putting the finishing touches on another free eBook for the subscribers right now. I can see a scenario where I would release longer "issues" as a pdf file as opposed to an email.

I was going to create a separate thread for this, but I can think of nothing better than the conclusion of this article to be a blatant illustration of Lip Service:

http://www.t-nation.com/free_online_article/most_recent/the_new_rules_of_strength_training The New Rules of Strength Training

I'm not a big fan of this kind of "satire". Lip Service indeed. The writer of this kind of muck is all "me, me, me" and I cannot stand it. Instead of substance it is about style. Instead of education it is about "see how clever I can be..I can say the opposite of what I mean". Instead of seeking to draw the readers in it seeks to alienate entire sets of readers by insulting them directly or their intelligence. I'm not impressed and I never have been about such blatant displays of reverse sophistry. I used examples in this article but never to lead the reader astray. Only to throw them a line and draw them in.

Why do I call it reverse sophistry? Well we discuss logical fallacies and invalid arguments a lot on this site. Most people do that simply because they haven't exercised their reasoning muscle enough. Sometimes, thought, people use plausible sounding but invalid arguments on purpose. We call this sophistry.

This piece relies almost entirely on sophistry and hyperbole and then makes it's point by turning these arguments on their head, so to speak, hence 'reversing' the sophistry. The author chooses by direct intent to deceive the reader with plausible sounding but invalid arguments simply to make the point that one can use technical language to deceive. I get this..I use examples in this way but NEVER to purposely draw the reader away from the purpose of the piece or to insult a larger group of readers.

It is a weak way of making a point. This is a serious allegation! It speaks of intent not accident. Well, either consciously or unconsciously, the writer of this kind of thing seeks to deceive because he does not SAY but only skates around a lack of substance or original thought with the intention of drawing attention to himself. It is a pet peeve of mine.

Some of this is about the idea that everything is context specific. Well, of course it is. Saying that things are content specific does not make a unique point unless we have a context! Exercise can be injurious or they can be downright healthy..depending on context. So what? It's a lot of trouble to go through to say that proper technique is important.

I get the intentions that are underneath all this and on some level he is trying to speak against "lip service". But one example followed by the list at the end would have made the point. As it is the article is more about showing how many terms, how much biomechanics and physiology the author can toss around rather than to make a strong point. It's about the teacher not the students. Most people will not read to the end of the article in the first place. To Brett and others like him, if you want to say something, say it directly. Don't hide behind rhetoric and style. Direct statements are ALWAYS more effective than sounding like a pitchman at a snake oil wagon.

A confusing message at best. Some of those exercises are stupid..his own little pets like "hip thrusts" or whatever the hell. You cannot apply all of the statements at the end to all of the exercises. There are certain exercises that have no real useful purpose and cannot be made safe by 'correct form'. An author who implies that he knows a way to make upright rows safe by intent and technique is full of shit.

This is the kind of shit that makes me do what I do. The strength trainees are confused enough without oh so clever degree holding jackoffs muddying their brains with "in jokes". Full of words but says nothing other than to thumb the nose at "meatheads".

That said, once again, we do not link there and I think there are more positive things to talk about then whatever the latest POS at T-Rag is. If someone wishes to use the link in your post, which is inactive now, all they have to do is highlight it first and then right click. At least if they have a good browser like Firefox.