Why is it that, just because it is Mel the marvellous, one cannot have a
rationale discussion on important issues from which we can all learn or be
involved. Can't one have an opinion if it differs from Mcsiff's?
This series of comments is sure to put off people wanting to discuss,
question etc and isn't this what the mailbase is all about???
Cheers,
Anna.
Anna Lee
Principal,
Work Ready - Industrial Athlete Centre
Physiotherapist and Occupational Health Consultant
Write to me at [log in to unmask]
Visit me at www.workready.com.au
Snail mail:
Suite 3, 82 Enmore Road,
Newtown NSW 2042
Australia
Tel: (02) 9519 7436
Mob: 0412 33 43 98
Fax: (02) 9519 7439
----- Original Message -----
From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, 30 March 2000 5:10
Subject: Re: PILATES & PHYSIOLOGY
> I agree entirely with Dan here.
>
> I've done some real dumb things on the Internet, without a doubt, but
> arguing with Dr. Siff about muscle function is not one of them. He knows,
> and he's perfectly willing and able to prove that. The Pilates people (and
> there are more all the time) should be defending their claims in this
> forum. If Simon is not all that familiar with their claims, let's hear
from
> someone who is.
>
> Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.
> <http://barrettdorko.com>
> Also at <http://rehabedge.com>
> And <http://prorehab.com>
>
>
>
> At 06:10 PM 3/29/00 +0100, you wrote:
> >Simon
> >
> >Get a life - it was you who stated,
> >
> >" I am surprisd that you are slagging off the muscle physiology behind
> > Pilates when you are unable to adequately describe muscle contraction".
> >
> >If you want to make statements like that then expect what you get. In
fact
> >Mel's mail (in response to your message which included the above
statement)
> >avoided the emotional terminology which you have used.
> >
> >
> >david riddell
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|