Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:26:25 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 227
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <bvu8uk$vjg$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <bvje91$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> <b9b3de8.0402050007.65a0e5e7@posting.google.com> <vg5520l207f67vebenv0gpbqfb7eqvjl66@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1076012786 51270 128.100.83.246 (5 Feb 2004 20:26:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 20:26:26 +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
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2196
news:vg5520l207f67vebenv0gpbqfb7eqvjl66@4ax.com...
> In talk.origins I read this message from
> branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski):
>
> >Susan S <otoeremovethis@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<749220ddnrgqmanl7tfej3g2ko3e4lv89q@4ax.com>...
> >> In talk.origins I read this message from "Daniel Harper"
> >> <daniel_harper@terralink.net>:
> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You're such a troll.
> >
> >heh.
> >
> >> >
> >> >But I'll respond anyway.
> >
> >shocked, i tel u.
> >
> >> >People with eating disorders often find
> >> >themselves trapped in a vicious cycle, in which low self-esteem or
other,
> >> >much more serious, mental disorders such as depression lead to
"comfort
> >> >food" that makes them feel better. As the weight goes up, they are led
> >> >back to their original food of choice to stop hurting, at least
> >> >temporarily. The trick is to help break the cycle, certainly with
> >> >self-discipline and a vigilance towards one's behavior, but also with
> >> >acceptance of their own essential good nature and with an
understanding
> >> >that it takes time to break their bad habits. To come barging into an
> >> >acceptance group, yelling like a madman about people eating too much,
does
> >> >nobody any good whatsoever.
> >> >
> >
> >Actually gluttony-acceptance is acceptance-abuse.
> >
> >We should accept many things, but not others.
> >
> >I am not talking about dissing people who are tring to get to grips
> >with their weight problem and finding it hard to get the will power. I
> >understand that. The final analysis though, is either the will power
> >will have to come or there is every chance that they will suffer all
> >the problems of obesity, sucha s wasted youth and shorter old age,
> >diabetes and other fat-related health problems, and also they will
> >probably not maximise their career and family potential.
> >
> >If someone is fat, then it is a good idea to make getting slim a very
> >high priority in their lives. I wouldn't put it before getting in
> >order spiritually, but it would be wrong to tell people, as the
> >fat-acceptance cult does, that they are fine the way they are and
> >everyone else has to adapt. That's the same doctrine that keeps people
> >believing they're okay as they are in other areas and never want to
> >change. They don't repent and find Christ for the same reason they
> >don't diet - because they believe they are fine as they are. Fat
> >acceptance is all about spreading that lie.
> >
> >
> >> >And yes, food addiction is a disorder, sometimes requiring medication
to
> >> >help correct.
> >
> >No-one's suggesting they shouldn't take the medicine but the
> >fat-acceptance movement itself.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> You
> >> >>> denigrate because you do not understand and have a religious agenda
to
> >> >>> push onto those who already have problems of their own. I shudder
to
> >> >>> think that you and I are both identified with the same religious
> >> >>> beliefs.
> >> >>>
> >
> >Hmmmn. And you think I don't?
> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >> > 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.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> This from a man who got his ass handed to him in talk.origins over
> >> >>> massively dishonest behavior and for utterly humiliating remarks
towards
> >> >>> an honest and decent poster who happened to know more about a
subject
> >> >>> than he did. Beams and motes, my friend.
> >> >>>
> >
> >There's nothing I said as Constance Vigilant to Charles Casey I
> >wouldn't say to his face, but it was not right to use a sock for that
> >level of debate. I'm through using socks for religious debate.
> >
> >But this is a pointless distraction, trying to steer off the issue by
> >getting mileage out of what I did wrong. Why cannot you just deal with
> >the issues, you people? I am sorry that your debating techniques are
> >so poor and pathetic.
> >
> >> >>> >> >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.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >Get him a Nigella Lawson book. Or a video, if they're available.
> >That'll change his mind.
> >
> I guess you haven't seen too many pictures of Nigella Lawson.
> She is not skinny.
>
> >I certainly advise you to do that, rather than become a shambling
> >shoggoth.
> >
> Once again, you are the little boy misogynist. Boring.
>
> >I have no doubt in my mind that a woman _can_ be too slim, but that
> >doesn't seem to be the problem for most Americans.
> >
> >>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >
> >Halle Berry has many more admirers.
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >I'm quite the opposite. I love women, and if anything, that's often
> >been my weakness.
> >
> You have not demonstrated any love for women. You have only shown
> that you admire the bodies of women who conform to your narrow
> definition of attractive. Generally, you denigrate women with
> nasty remarks. You have derided individual women here.
Yeah, but that was like despite them being women, not because of it.
I think if you are thinking about yourself it was only because you started
on me first. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Remember I'm very
outnumbered here, and sometimes I have to get a little tough to defend
myself. Especially when it got very nasty and words like 'worms' and 'rocks'
and 'shit' were flying around and you were loving it like on the macDonalds
advert.
>Your mind
> is a sewer and I assure you that the women in t.o. (with the
> possible exception of Jo Jean) do not find that attractive in a
> man, regardless of the way he looks.
>
I can't help it if you're all more puritanical than the believers are.
That always seems to be the way with militant skeptics.
I'm sure you don't like anything dirty happening to you. I'm sure you
probably caress your husband in surgical gloves.
I'm sure the men in t.o. all find that very attractive, because from what I
can see they're all as prissy and schoolmarmish and puritanical as you are.
Uncle Davey
|
| 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 |
|