Johnston Rep Method

[xtreme]

Removed.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

I just don't see how you can come onto our site "HST" and promote something for free...which is what you are doing by causing controversy and then get into a pissing contest with our guys.

This is HST we support this group and are kind and respectfull 100% of the time, however dont interprate that as being a pushover or easy.

We stand behind our Product firm and we pull push back with force. Therefor you can't get pissed if you are feeling attacked.

I would not go to your forum and start promoting HST and not espect some negative feedback.

If you want to charge $$$ and I can see why you would go ahead....best wishes.

However I don't agree with you giving some info mercial Bull shi-t spill about how it has changed your training life.

I dont mean this in a smart @ss way neither just trying to stay honest...you just cant come over to a forum and give this spill about how it will change your life...and then comeback and argue points and ask for our Visa Charge Card # while you are at it!

Happy New Year!

 

[xtreme]

Removed.

 

[Lil Popa Pump]

Joe, maybe you should read the thread a little more carefully!  

 You've confused at least two, maybe three, different people.  logicbdj's* (Pres. of the IART) first post was limited to responding to a comment re easily faked testimonials (ie there was no promotion involved).  Someone else, who has been a long time member here (shakeel), started the thread (and I am not sure who xtreme is other than some acquaintance of Bryan H and someone who seems to have tried the method in question). Also, twice, logicbdj mentioned that it would not be appropriate to discuss his product(s) on this board, at least without an invitation (presumably, from Bryan H. ), which is altogether reasonable and respectful of this being Bryan H's board.  Apparently, the opportunity for such an invite has passed, even if Bryan H. now extends an invite, as logicbdj said he will not return to this board.

At any rate and as for certain others, if you're interested and capable (eg dkm1987), why not propose a "Critical Analysis of J-Reps" article for the Synergy publication?  Who knows if he would go for it, but we'll never know unless someone capable submits such a proposal.  AFAIK, he is not one to avoid a debate within the pages of Synergy as, if I recall correctly, he had two similar debates in the works at different points, which did not pan out (mainly because two of his "opponents" died).  In addition, he published several similar debates in the magazine he used to published, as well as articles (not so much debates) by folks he did/does not get along with and does not agree with.  So, it is not like all avenues for debate/discussion have necessarily been shut.  If you're interested - try, and if he is game - do (not to sound like Yoda, but whatever!   ).


* using the member name so as to avoid further confusion

 

[Lil Popa Pump]

Quote[/b] (xahrx @ Dec. 28 2005,3:32)]
Look up "Fair Use," this is more than covered.

...despite any registration agreements here or elsewhere, copyright law is pretty clear on this matter.

Fair use is irrelevant because when you register for this board, you explicitly agree to the ToS for this board (and I am not offering any opinion as to whether or not any quoted material in this thread would or would not constitute a fair use - generally speaking, however, "fair use" is a rather muddled concept in the law and not as easily determined as you imply).

The ToS for this board provides:

"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB."

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Lil Popa,
Fair and honest input.
And being honest with you and anyone else, I simply do not care enough about J Reps or Brian Johnston to pursue it further, as indicated by my lack of further participation in this thread. My quest was to get clarification of his presumptions, he chose not to oblige, so be it.
Dan

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (Lil Popa Pump @ Dec. 30 2005,7:47)]Joe, maybe you should read the thread a little more carefully!

You've confused at least two, maybe three, different people. logicbdj's* (Pres. of the IART) first post was limited to responding to a comment re easily faked testimonials (ie there was no promotion involved). Someone else, who has been a long time member here (shakeel), started the thread (and I am not sure who xtreme is other than some acquaintance of Bryan H and someone who seems to have tried the method in question). Also, twice, logicbdj mentioned that it would not be appropriate to discuss his product(s) on this board, at least without an invitation (presumably, from Bryan H. ), which is altogether reasonable and respectful of this being Bryan H's board. Apparently, the opportunity for such an invite has passed, even if Bryan H. now extends an invite, as logicbdj said he will not return to this board.
At any rate and as for certain others, if you're interested and capable (eg dkm1987), why not propose a "Critical Analysis of J-Reps" article for the Synergy publication? Who knows if he would go for it, but we'll never know unless someone capable submits such a proposal. AFAIK, he is not one to avoid a debate within the pages of Synergy as, if I recall correctly, he had two similar debates in the works at different points, which did not pan out (mainly because two of his "opponents" died). In addition, he published several similar debates in the magazine he used to published, as well as articles (not so much debates) by folks he did/does not get along with and does not agree with. So, it is not like all avenues for debate/discussion have necessarily been shut. If you're interested - try, and if he is game - do (not to sound like Yoda, but whatever! ).
* using the member name so as to avoid further confusion

Yah, Johnston is a real class act.

As you noted, he certainly likes debate - at least when the people he "debates" are already dead.

I'd like to note that Johnston has taken material Bryan has written out of context before and literally refused to be corrected about his misinterpretation, even when that correction came from Bryan himself.

Johnston is just another HIT jedi tard pretending to be Arthur Jones and sheltering his crappy ideas on his privately run message board while surrounding himself with know-nothing sycophants who praise his name with every new "breakthrough" he releases. For a nominal fee, of course.

 

[Joe.Muscle]

Maybe I mis interpreted the info???

Maybe I didn't the truth is I was at work and I dont have time to read and re read every little sentence.

Oh well point taken and fair enough from the J-rep guys.

But I will contiue to defend HST and this website b/c it is by far the most polite non BS website with extremely no BS answers with Science behind them. It has truely helped me as well as others and I stand very grateful for Brian and the other veterans on here.

Maybe I dont understand this thread and I am feeling defensive??? But I appreciate this board and forum so much that I will get passionate about things.

Just sounded like a midnight enfo mercial to me from the beginning....but what do I know???....hehe.

Anyway I wish knowone but the best!

And I will stay in the fox hole with my fellow HST'ers!

Happy new Year!

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (xtreme @ Dec. 31 2005,10:51)]Aaron_F... HIT is basically a single set to failure, where once mastered I am finding a single set of JReps suffices. So NO it isn't that dramatically different to HIT, it sure isn't any type of volume. So how did it account for a 1/4" calf and quad gain? Hmmm, seems it WORKS!!!

Thanks for shilling, but its already been shown that multiple things work. Your trying to say that it works better.

While my anecdote is as utterly worthless as yours, I have added 1/2" on my calfs in the past, without Jreps, in as little as 2 weeks

How do you explain that? hmm, seems that not doing Jreps is twice as good as Jreps... oh thats right, its not a good comparison, but hey magic is always good

 

[Aaron_F]

Quote[/b] (xtreme @ Dec. 31 2005,1:04)]I love my thicker, longer biceps, as I do all the other changes JReps have delivered.

How does Jreps develop longer biceps?

 

[navigator]

Quote[/b] (Lil Popa Pump @ Dec. 30 2005,5:30)]

Quote[/b] (xahrx @ Dec. 28 2005,3:32)]
Look up "Fair Use," this is more than covered.
...despite any registration agreements here or elsewhere, copyright law is pretty clear on this matter.

Fair use is irrelevant because when you register for this board, you explicitly agree to the ToS for this board (and I am not offering any opinion as to whether or not any quoted material in this thread would or would not constitute a fair use - generally speaking, however, "fair use" is a rather muddled concept in the law and not as easily determined as you imply).  
The ToS for this board provides:
"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB."

This being said, I don't see any reason why Xtreme cannot talk about Jreps in his own words. Talking about Jreps is not against the law. Since Xtreme is so familiar with the Jreps approach, then perhaps he could take a stab at answering Dan's questions. No?

What irritates me is that these guys come here with a few fantastic statements about their top secret training system, but they won't even discuss a few broad points about their system--and then we're all supposed to drop HST and fork over cash.

I think these guys are fishing...

 

[xtreme]

Removed.

 

[Lil Popa Pump]

Quote[/b] ]...at least when the people he "debates" are already dead.

I fail to see why offering a critique of a dead person's ideas is being portrayed as something negative (in one of your earlier posts, too).  For example, I would be surprised if the Supertraining critique went beyond the contents of the book and included something like, "Mel Siff was also a pedophile." So, unless you consider Supertraining, for example, to be some holy text and all criticism of it heresy, the whole dead person "argument" (and argument about the timing of said critique) is more than a little irrational (and post hoc)...well, it would be irrational if you actually considered Supertraining a holy text, but at least the dead person "argument" would be understandable on some level.

 I mean, if no one was ever allowed to critique the ideas of dead people, we'd all still be living in caves.  And it is not like ideas are so personal to people that after they die, no one else will come along and ever be able to offer a rebuttal to any critique...it happens all the time and in all sorts of disciplines.

Quote[/b] ]This being said, I don't see any reason why Xtreme cannot talk about Jreps in his own words.  Talking about Jreps is not against the law.

No one suggested he couldn't.  And no one suggsted it was.

At any rate, I was mostly curious as to whether someone (ie dkm1987) was gonna take BDJ up on the Synergy thing, and, if so, whether the piece might be a critique of JReps, as I would have found it interesting (the whole "fair use" thing is just a pet peeve of mine, and I was too bored at work to let it pass...lol).  And, no, I don't have the JReps book and know only as much of the book's contents as is posted on lyle's board. Later.

 

[mikeynov]

Quote[/b] (Lil Popa Pump @ Dec. 31 2005,3:00)]

Quote[/b] ]...at least when the people he "debates" are already dead.

I fail to see why offering a critique of a dead person's ideas is being portrayed as something negative (in one of your earlier posts, too). For example, I would be surprised if the Supertraining critique went beyond the contents of the book and included something like, "Mel Siff was also a pedophile." So, unless you consider Supertraining, for example, to be some holy text and all criticism of it heresy, the whole dead person "argument" (and argument about the timing of said critique) is more than a little irrational (and post hoc)...well, it would be irrational if you actually considered Supertraining a holy text, but at least the dead person "argument" would be understandable on some level.

I mean, if no one was ever allowed to critique the ideas of dead people, we'd all still be living in caves. And it is not like ideas are so personal to people that after they die, no one else will come along and ever be able to offer a rebuttal to any critique...it happens all the time and in all sorts of disciplines.

It's being offered as "negative" because with both Siff and Mentzer, he had ample opportunity to debate them BEFORE their death.

Siff in particular - I could probably dig up the supertraining posts, but Johnston claimed more than once to "not have time" for a public debate between the two. As I said, he apparently found that time after Siff died and couldn't reply to Johnston's critiques.

 

[xahrx]

Quote[/b] (Lil Popa Pump @ Dec. 30 2005,8:30)]Fair use is irrelevant because when you register for this board, you explicitly agree to the ToS for this board (and I am not offering any opinion as to whether or not any quoted material in this thread would or would not constitute a fair use - generally speaking, however, "fair use" is a rather muddled concept in the law and not as easily determined as you imply).
The ToS for this board provides:
"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this BB."

Not to split hairs, but case law on that subject so far as it exists applies to electronic distributions of entire works, not fair use excerpts. The disclaimer is on a lot of TOS agreements, and it's simply meant to protect board admins from civil and criminal actions if someone wants to try and use their boards for wholesale copyright violation, such as the repeated posting of copyrighted ebooks on other boards which I won't name. It serves as one proof of lack of intent on their part. If something is not in violation of copyright law it doesn't break the purpose of the TOS. By your interpretation Bryan's own postings of study abstracts and excerpts is in violation of his own TOS, which would be a bit silly.

Basically this thread boils down to a couple of guys saying how wonderful J Reps are, but refusing to say anything about them, even after a basic template for how they're done pops up somewhere else and they seem to be a reworking of 21s, which have been around a long, long time. Reduced or modified ROM reps are nothing new.

Then Johnston shows up, and to be blunt taking some time to say "I don't have time to debate this" approach is old hat with him, he should try something new at this point. If he wants someone to fork over some money for the info he should spend some time differentiating his method as much as possible without giving everything away, because right now it seems as wise a buy as anything that some spandex wearing weirdo is hawking on late night/early morning infomercials.

Now he may indeed have found something, how am I supposed to know? I haven't read the book and I'm not going too. I was skeptical of Ron and Sub7's ACIT stuff until I looked into it more and Ron posted an article clarifying some of his ideas. Now I'm liking the idea, especially if it turns out to be easier on some of my joints. Point is, with a little debate they made me and a few others see they weren't full of it, they actually had an idea worth talking about. In other words if they wrote a book, I'd probably buy it...

 

[mikeynov]

As per the above, I don't think anybody ever said "Jreps" didn't work. Probably because most of us have no real idea whether they do or not, and as far as I know, none of us has access to his full (and probably expensive) book on the subject.

That said, Johnston's attitude still sucks and his unwillingness to entertain debate in any form with the combined excuses of "I'm too old/busy" (incidentally, a line he also used on Mel Siff before he croaked) and "well, okay, but on my board after you buy my stuff" is just lame.

 

[navigator]

Quote[/b] (xtreme @ Dec. 30 2005,11:48)]navigator... the only reason I don't expand upon JReps is that I don't want it hampering his book. Once it is well known then I will gladly share everything, but for now I can only tell you what it has done for me. No... no fishing here! Like I said, who cares whether everyone here buys the book or not. I'm just sharing what I have found THAT'S ALL!

Yes, but I think acting as though you signed a Nondisclosure Agreement is doing more hard than good--especially on this board where we have an open-door policy to HST. Guests have always been welcomed to come and learn about HST without having buy anything or having to key in passwords, and the like. As a result, HST is widely discussed on several boards and people throughout the world are anxious to buy Bryan's book.

Bryan has openly shared HST with the world for, well, just abour 6 years, now. I assure you that the very minute he posts his book it'll sell like hot-cakes. People already know about HST--they'll buy Bryan's book because they want to know even more about HST, because they want to help Bryan, because they want to support HST/HSN, and a littany of other reasons. Point is: HST is already 'out there,' and the book will sell even better as a result.

When I go to a book store, I can look through the books and decide whether to buy. I can ask other people what the book is about, and they'll tell me--this makes me want to buy. Even Amazon.com now lets readers browse through sections of books to decide whether to buy. For some reason, with novice ebook authors, all you get is reams and reams of testimonials...

Ultimately, Jreps will rise or fall based on whether or not it provides something valuable to offer to the training world. Talking with us openly about the broad points of Jreps wouldn't have hamper the book, it would have sparked interest instead. Answering Dans questions would have been the best way for Mr. Johnson to peak everyone's interest in his book. Instead, he chose to throw up a legal blockade. So, okay, fair enough--he succeeded in keeping his book a secret for a little while longer, but he also came across as evasive and rude, and turned away the nearly 20,000 members of this board.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

During one of the private emails, which Mr. Johnston initiated, that ensued from this thread, I brought up this very issue. Making the statement that his evasiveness did not help enlighten any readers at this forum which could have broadened his audience to both his method and theories. Needless to say his response was not all that gracious and he admittedly has no concern for attracting practitioners or members of HST and also admits that selling 2-4 more books means nothing to him.

Dan

 

[navigator]

Well, I suppose that is his right.

But on the other hand, with that said, there's not much point for those guys to contiinue on with this discussion. If he doesn't want to tell us about his theory, he doesn't want to put forth the time and effort to discuss training with us, and he doesn't want to sell us any of his books, then what's to talk about already?

 

[Dood]

Bottom line, if you come to a science based discussion board with something new, you better be willing to discuss the science behind it. For example, if you claim to have something that can actually change the shape of a muscle, for which there is no scientific evidence available, it might be nice to be able to explain how that's possible. And as I mentioned before, if you can't, then just admit it and at least say you don't really know how it works, don't pretend you "don't have the time".
Unfortunately for Mr. Johnston, I think he turned off more than 2 potential buyers with his attitude.