(A private post to Reg reposted by Reg with the permission of Caio Rossi .)
REg,
I feel that part of our discussion comes from mutual misunderstanding. When
I said:
>BTW, it may be a popular assumption in Australia but it's not a popular
> >assumption in Brazil that the abs go to the navel only.
I meant that you shouldn't refer to the abs as being only the upper abs
based on popular assumption ( at least on our discussions on the list )
since popular assumptions vary across the world. That's where 'globalized',
scientific concepts come into play.
I've read some book that talked about abdominal breathing in the past and I
always took for granted it included the whole abs, not only the epigastric
area ( as I found out some 'mistaken months' later ).
>
> You also jumped to an incorrect conclusion below. I was
> actually speaking of conscious effort, NOT what really happened.
> There is a difference.
Maybe that was clear to you, in your mind, but that was not clear in the
text. However, I must admit that this morning I re-read all your previous
posts on the subject and saw that you- although questioning its validity,
"Of course, *right or wrong* the abdomen is classified as the total area,
ribs to pubic bone, but it seems to me that..."- don't think the abs are
from the navel to the ribs, but then it puts your whole gym story out of
place, since you used it to back up the idea that it was *wrong* to classify
it as the total area, without any reference to conscious effort. Of course,
that makes those 2 pictures of semi-naked men out of place too ( I re-read
your posts only after sending the e-mail ), but at least you could confirm
or NOT? ) your heterosexuality :-)
> Of _course_, there is involvement
> of the whole of the body, as you say, how could there not be.
> The original intention of this discussion when I asked Ian Belsey
> to describe his conscious singing action, was to try and arrive at
> some agreement on applied body action during singing..
> Perceived....NOT actual.
And my original intention was to avoid unclear definitions of the abs based
on 'culturally-biased' data. I think replacing upper abs for abs is better
than using and encourage popular misconceptions.
>
> In my opinion all four cannot be correct and I think Lloyd
> has the same opinion from something he wrote mid 98.
> For this reason I strongly resent your determination that only
> strict nomenclature and descriptions should be used. That is _not_
> what most listers understand.
Don't you think that referring to the upper abs as upper abs would bring
fewer misunderstandings than 'abs' only? BTW, it did!
> I really think some of this should have gone on the open list.
> With your permission I'd like to redirect it.
Ok. Do that to this one too.
And why don't you repost Lloyd's 98 post? It's
going to save the wise man from retyping it all over again!
Bye ( smoking the pipe of peace )
Caio Rossi ( I cannot do that without his permission.) RB.
|
|  |
