Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 111
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <bvnrij$rv4$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <a766a589.0401261129.4516665d@posting.google.com> <bvd11c$k18$2@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401300712.35109640@posting.google.com> <bvgku7$gt5$1@news.onet.pl> <517d5df8.0401311452.4845f5f4@posting.google.com> <bvicq9$232$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402010651.5b31f70f@posting.google.com> <bvje91$lk8$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com> <bvm0kb$5lk$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2004.02.02.18.22.02.915622@terralink.net> <cf0u10d4ggmkca72vrq0g5semal1lhe465@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075802482 87843 128.100.83.246 (3 Feb 2004 10:01:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:01:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-Spamscanner: mailbox2.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Dec 3 2003 15:07:19, 0.7/5.0 2.60)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 24700 i13A1wR1027534 mailbox2.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2132
Uzytkownik "Lady Veteran" <armyvet@jeepweb.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:cf0u10d4ggmkca72vrq0g5semal1lhe465@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 18:12:41 +0000 (UTC), "Daniel Harper"
> <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:15:30 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I think the problem is with some of the studies you have given
> >>> > is that
> >> they
> >>> > are biassed because obese people write them.
> >>> >
> >>> > Uncle Davey
> >>>
> >>> My word! Isn't it easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your
> >>> view! Thanks for the laugh.
> >>>
> >>> RF
> >>>
> >>> PS You're not exactly persuading me by the force of your argument
> >>> and evidence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> People sometimes cite the examples of Cretan fertility goddess
> >> figurines, which are broad hipped, but what they fail to focus on
> >> is that invariably these ancient models have a high hip to waist
> >> ratio. The hips are broad to accentaute the slim waist.
> >>
> >> Fat women do not have a high hip to waist ratio, they can have
> >> pretty much an identical measurement at breast waist and hips, and
> >> this is not a visual symbol which ever triggered a sexual response
> >> in typical men.
> >>
> >> Uncle Davey
> >
> >I can't believe you're even trying to have this discussion.
>
> He will try. He has to have something to elevate himself over us
> ordinary human beings. He isn't a new idiot-he is old one who gets
> his jollies by putting down fat women. He can't just leave them
> alone. He has to actually try to hurt them. He hasn't succeeded but
> he tries, nevertheless.
>
I don't hurt them, they hurt themselves. I don't push the food down their
throats. You encourage them to do that. You hurt them.
I'm telling the truth, and if the truth hurts, then that's not a reason for
not saying it.
> > You have
> >access to the _Internet_; can there be any better proof that people
> >have different standards of beauty and different types of sexual
> >desire than you do? While we can generalize all day about the
> >various types of body types that are more "attractive" in an
> >aggregate sense, the truth is that sexual attraction is a purely
> >local phenomenon between individuals, and that what Joe Blow and
> >Jane Smith find attractive about one another on a physical level may
> >or may not have anything to do with anything you'd notice.
>
> Personally, I think he just wants to put women down to keep his
> perceived sense of superiority. He has a lot of nerve poking his
> stinky face in SSFA. He sticks his insults in SSFA and he will get
> his ass flamed. Simple. Some people should learn to control their
> pets.
Is 'pets' an abbreviation for 'appetites'? I heartily agree!
Bobby, I hope you're following a calorie controlled diet right now.
> >
> >And besides all that, some of us find our mates attractive for
> >things like intelligence, wit, sense of humor, willingness to love,
> >a caring nature, being good to snuggle with, or putting up with lame
> >philsophy/biology puns more so than anything that might be termed
> >physical attractiveness. In short, your view of what is attractive
> >is so myopic and based on Hollywood beauty that it's hard to see how
> >you can even begin to understand reality.
> >
> >Personally, I like to look at women with some _curves_.
>
> There are so many idiots in this group (SSFA) that they think their
> behavior is normal.
>
> Each person deserves the chance to find that love, fat or not, in
> spite of the idiots.
>
> LV
Sure, and the more work they put into it, the higher they deserve it, and
the bigger the chance will be.
Allowing yourself to be a shambling shoggoth will not increase your chances,
and saying that it will is just pointless.
Preaching the acceptance of gluttony is a lie, the same as preaching the
acceptance of any other sin is a lie.
Uncle Davey, and kindly don't crosspost my words to soc.singles. I don't
feature in that group.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
|