Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:19:32 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Lines: 149
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <pan.2004.02.04.20.28.27.959131@terralink.net>
References: <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$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2004.02.02.18.22.02.915622@terralink.net> <cf0u10d4ggmkca72vrq0g5semal1lhe465@4ax.com> <bvnrij$rv4$0@pita.alt.net> <pan.2004.02.03.23.22.39.469703@terralink.net> <cb5b2d4e.0402032116.17587fa1@posting.google.com> <pan.2004.02.04.06.42.56.731205@terralink.net> <749220ddnrgqmanl7tfej3g2ko3e4lv89q@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1075925972 24617 128.100.83.246 (4 Feb 2004 20:19:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 20:19:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Pan/0.13.4 (She had eyes like strange sins.)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.189.241.225
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2172
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 17:04:45 +0000, Susan S wrote:
> In talk.origins I read this message from "Daniel Harper"
> <daniel_harper@terralink.net>:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 05:15:39 +0000, Ralph DuBose wrote:
>>
>>> "Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:<pan.2004.02.03.23.22.39.469703@terralink.net>...
>>>> On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 10:01:22 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > 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:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> news:892cb437.0402020645.66f5141b@posting.google.com...
>>>> >> >>> >
<snip>
>>> You want a quick dose of reality? Try to sell anything with a
>>> picture of a fat person holding it up.
>>
>>The Barefoot Contessa does just fine on the Food Network.
>>
> My husband's favorite TV chief. He thinks she looks like a good cook
> should. More than once, he has suggested *I* should acquire some
> additional padding.
>
Yeah, the only one I'll actually watch. (Other than the Iron Chefs, but
they're not exactly in the same business as the Barefoot Contessa, right?
;-> ) Personally, I wouldn't _want_ to eat most of the crap that TV chefs
decide to put on the air; I'd rather eat food by someone who has a healthy
appetite for good, wholesome food.
>>Orson Welles and Alfred Hitchcock were two of the finest filmmakers of
>>all time, who were personally identified with their bodies of work.
>>
>>Plus-size models are often used in modelling large-size clothing and
>>maternity wear, and don't seem to hurt sales.
>>
>>Missy Elliott (spelling?) is one of the finest hip-hop artists of all
>>time, and while she's lost weight recently, her early albums were not
>>hindered by her weight. Ditto for John Popper of Blues Traveller.
>>
> Queen Latifah! She is stunning. I know men and women who just think she
> looks great.
>
I neglected Queen Latifah. And she is a perfect example of a bona fide sex
symbol who also has a little bit of extra padding here and there.
Hint to misogynist guys everywhere: Bigger girls have bigger breasts,
better asses, and nice hips. It's good to have something to hold onto when
you're snuggling with the person you care about. And you don't have to
worry about breaking them in half during, er, extracurricular activities.
> Davey's problem here is he assume's that his standard is/should be
> everyone's. Reader's will note that is generally true for all his ideas.
> And he is that most boring of creatures, the little boy misogynist.
>
>>> What? You don't like this reality? Why not?
>>
>>I think what you mean is that Madison Avenue sells products based on sex
>>appeal, and tend to use microscopic models in order to do so. You are, of
>>course, correct. But the larger context is that "skinny equals sexy" is
>>not a universal standard even today, much less across the bounds of
>>centuries and culture. "Reality" is composed of individual people, who
>>have varying desires and a great deal of variation with regard to all
>>aspects of looks. The girls in liquor ads are in no way representative of
>>what real people look like, or what real people find attractive.
>>
>>> It seems you prefer the kind of reality that you can intimidate and
>>> control and spray moral-sounding vapors at.
>>> I get the impression that you are posing as the serious adult
>>> dispensing serious advice. But I think it is all a hollow act.
>>
>>Classic projection. You are obviously talking out of your ass.
>>
>>> Nature is serious. Nature you cannot bluff or intimidate. Nature
>>> hates fattness. It ruthlessly inflicts diabetes, hypertension, and an
>>> early painful death upon fat people. You cannot get more serious or
>>> more real than that.
>>
>>
> Once again, Davey is ignorant. He knows nothing about the evolution of
> body types. This is not surprising, since he rejects the concept of
> evolution.
>
> Susan Silberstein
> "Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask..."
> -REM, "Man on the Moon"
>
You posted this message twice here, so I don't know if you made a mistake
or did in intentionally. In any case, the text you're immediately
responding to here is by "Ralph DuBose", not Uncle Davey. Of course, given
Davey's history it may very well be one of his sock puppets. Terrible that
he has such a track record of dishonety that we have to suspect sock
puppetry whenever someone supports him that we don't recognize. <sigh>
>>"Nature" is an abstract concept describing the aggregate statistical
>>reality of the universe. Selective advantage is not a discrete thing, but
>>can be conferred by any number of survival strategies. While the
>>possibility of diabetes goes up with weight, so does the ability to
>>resist cold weather. Were our climate to suddenly change, those with an
>>extra layer or two of padding will be better able to survive. It is,
>>ironically, athletes who are least able to survive in cold weather, as
>>they have "trained" their bodies to dissipate heat more effectively.
>>
> Once again, Davey is ignorant. He knows nothing about the evolution of
> body types. This is not surprising, since he rejects the concept of
> evolution.
>
> Susan Silberstein
> "Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask..."
> -REM, "Man on the Moon"
>
Here you are responding to Davey's comments. And here (as before) you are
exactly right. Davey hasn't a clue what he's talking about. As usual.
<snip rest>
Nice to get the input of a female here, Susan. And a beautiful one, at
that. :->
--
...and it is my belief that no greater good has ever befallen you in this city
than my service to my God. [...] Wealth does not bring goodness, but goodness
brings wealth and every other blessing, both to the individual and that state.
Plato, quoting Socrates, from The _Apology_
--Daniel Harper
(Change terra to earth for email)
|
| 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 |
|