Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:24:35 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: www.usenetposts.com
Lines: 369
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <c0301s$71j$0@pita.alt.net>
References: <bvicq9$232$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl> <bvje91$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> <pan.2004.02.06.06.50.33.157412@terralink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1076167475 97704 128.100.83.246 (7 Feb 2004 15:24:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 15:24:35 +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:2207
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:00:26 +0000, Jerzy Jakubowski wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> There's a difference between being fat and being gluttonous.
>
> > We should accept many things, but not others.
> >
>
> If a person makes a decision to not worry about their weight and to accept
> themselves at the weight that they are, is that something that we won't
> accept?
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I am a bit overweight. While I'd like to be a bit slimmer, I have accepted
> that my weight is not likely to change unless I make changes in my diet
> and lifestyle that are not worth the few pounds that I could lose. I
> accept that the risk of diabetes (runs in my family, BTW) and heart
> disease (I had heart surgery when I was 17) and other illnesses increase
> slightly at my weight, and will live with the risks.
>
> In any case, the tone of your post, the arrogance of assuming that
> everyone who is overweight must be a fat gluttonous pig who is completely
> undesirable is completely wrongheaded, and will not gain you anything in
> terms of converts.
I don't win converts, I tell truths.
God can convert or not convert, as He sees fit.
>
> > If someone is fat, then it is a good idea to make getting slim a very
high
> > priority in their lives.
>
> Depends on how overweight someone is. If someone's got ten extra pounds,
> it's nonsense for them to get bent out of shape about it. Five hundred
> extra pounds is a serious health risk and can certainly be a serious
> problem.
They won't get to five hundred extra pounds. They'll die first.
I think you need to put the threshold at nearer to ten.
If someone has been ten pounds overweight for years, and stayed at that
weight, well, probably that's their weight. But if someone has a tendency to
gaion ten pounds every year, then before they know where they are it will
accelerate and they will be like some people you see who can hardly move.
It's not only where you are it's where you're going.
>
> > 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.
>
> Tell me exactly how anyone has to "adapt" to my weight problem.
>
At only ten pounds overweight, probably only your partner has to adapt.
Airlines will not be redesigning their seating for you. But that's what the
fat acceptance movement has been lobbying for, for its members.
> > 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.
> >
>
> People don't find Christ (or accept principles of loving support, which to
> my mind is largely the same thing) because they have other things in their
> lives which get in the way. Sometimes it's a physical thing like eating or
> drugs, other times (and much more seriously) it can be a philosophical or
> theological construct that results in prejudgment of other people to a
> degree that prohibits proper Christlike behavior.
>
I think that to be Christlike in the matter of the sick involves encouraging
them to help themselves if that is possible.
A person with an incurable disease can only be comforted.
If a person has a disease which will kill them if they somke and get better
if they don't, then a christlike person, I believe, will encourage them not
to smoke and follow their addiction, which is like an idol to them, and
commit suicide that way.
With the morbidly obese, calorific food is the same as smoking in that
analogy.
> In another message, I stated that I don't know a lot about the SSFA
> newsgroup, and don't really care to find out. If they are spreading lies
> about scientific data, then they should be corrected. But if they are
> simply trying to live their lives and support others who are trying to
> come to grips with being heavier than a centerfold, then I support them in
> their efforts.
>
I don't believe that every woman needs to be a centrefold, in fact the
liberal use of the airbrush means that even centrefolds don't always look
like centrefolds, and if they do, it won't be for long.
I even believe kids in school should be taught to resist such notions.
But that is a far cry from accepting things about yourself which can be
changed and if not are highly damaging.
> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >
>
> My point was simply that a mental disorder, if not diagnosed, can lead to
> large amounts of weight gain that are very difficult to take off, even
> after medication is prescribed. To claim that it's just a bunch of
> gluttons deciding to eat too much and not exercising because they're lazy
> is to refuse to look at the reality of the situtation.
If a person eats more calories than they burn, they get fat, and if they
burn more than they eat, they get slimmer.
It's simple, it's scientific, it's plain common sense, and it is vehemently
denied by the fat-acceptance cult.
Is it christlike not to repeat the truth to them?
>
> >> >> 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?
> >
> >
>
> I am certain that you feel as threatened by theists such as myself as you
> are threatened by the truth of evolutionary biology and higher criticism.
I call it lower criticism, but do go on,
> But in the interest of honesty and fair-dealing, I am interested in what
> you'd have to say to theists such as myself who reject biblical literalism
> (and omphalism, since that is your stated belief structure) for what we
> consider to be good scientific and theological reasons. Care to evangelize
> for your position to one who is very clearly a non-atheist?
If you are someone who believes in Christ for your salvation, then I have
nothing to add to that.
>
> >> >>> >> > 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.
> >
>
> And what you said was still highly objectionable. And the use of
> sock-puppets to the degree that you use them is a questionable thing in
> and of itself, if you are attempting to have serious discussions with
> people. It gives you an air of dishonesty even when you are being truly
> straightforward.
>
That's what I'va admitted. In CV I did that for the first time, and I also
didn't cough immediately to the discovery for the first time. There's a long
record of other socks of mine which everyone but Jim Ledford thought were
good fun, and even people have requested me to bring back some of the
characters like Mary Robinson, Sproey von Weytzentrenner and leading
horticulturalist. But I put them to bed on 31st January 2003.
CV was an experiment, because I often try to write experimentally as you can
see, but she was wrong. She was an unethical experiment. That's why she's
gone, and I said I'm sorry about her.
I also said through her things I would have liked to have said personally,
but it was tricky to put my own headers on the same computer at that time.
It would have proved to the astute immediately that I was the CV
Strumpfpuppenfuehrer, which would have given the game away. So a lot of
stuff went through her, which ideally I wouold have preferred to write as
Uncle Davey.
Charles Casey nevertheless deserved whatever I said to him. His attack on
Jason was so far over the top I just wanted to go for him. I don't like
people being mean to my friends.
> > 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.
> >
>
> We are perfectly capable of dealing with the issues. You were deliberately
> making fun of another poster in what I consider to be a cheap and low-down
> kind of way; I simply pointed out that you have your own problems with
> regard to ethical behavior, and I really think you only say you're sorry
> because otherwise we'd hound you even more about it.
I said I was generally sorry, got hounded for apologising by those here who
regard apology as a sign of weakness, and then retracted the apology to the
minimum necessary for my own conscience. You lot can think what you like,
actually. You are determined to think the worst whatever any of us do.
>
> <snip material of Susan, to which she has responded already>
>
> >>
> >> >And early death does not make life any less full. Many people make the
> >> >deliberate choice that a life lived until fifty eating what they want
> >> >is better than one lived to eighty but eating bran muffins and
> >> >exercising five times a week. We may argue over the relative merits of
> >> >these positions, as well as all the values in between, but people
> >> >should (and do, in a free society) have the right to make trade-offs
> >> >regarding their health for themselves. By the way, do you smoke or
> >> >drink?
> >> >
> >> >
> > You talk nonsense.
> >
> > Once the doctor says "okay, you've got only six months left to live"
> > everybody drops their addictions, be it food, drink, smoking, sex.
There's
> > nothing you would choose over living a bit longer. Early death is what
> > nobody wants or is willing to accept given a choice, unless they have a
> > case of severe mental illness. Your comment is glib and unfounded. Even
> > yesterday on Russian TV this point was made by a practicing psychologist
> > in the studio.
> >
> >
>
> Not true in the least. Many people, upon approaching the end of their
> lives, decide to "live it up" and take what comes. Others simply decide
> that the amount of life they have is not proportional to the quality of
> it, and so will accept their fate and bow out gracefully. As a Christian,
> you should be well-aware that there are many things in this existence more
> important than the simple number of years you live. When I die, I hope
> that I will maintain the integrity and decency to go with a certain amount
> of honor, although of course I will take whatever advantages medical
> science can give me.
>
People go on diets well enough, once it's clear they are at immediate
critical risk.
> >> >> You are the one here who is pimping a form of anti-pagan
christian
> >> >> religiousity.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >I have no idea what you're talking about here. Perhaps you should
> >> >define "anti-pagan christian religiousity" for me before we continue
> >> >with this theological discussion.
> >> >
> >> ><snip rest, which was not responded to in the original message>
> >> >
> >> >By the way, are you an Uncle Davey sock puppet?
> >
> > Not that I know of.
> > Anyway, I would have composed that name slightly differently. So that
> > proves it.
> >
>
> I'll accept that for now. You did say you'd reveal yourself whenever you
> were asked directly, so I'll assume you were speaking honestly there.
Like I say, I am sorry for not coming clean about CV immediately and the
record shows I have never done that before. I'm not doing it again. It was
the only lie I've ever told on usenet, actually there was one other time I
wasn't truthful, but it was a joke that happened years ago and only one
other person knows about it.
If Ralph were one of mine I'd have to admit it now, but he isn't.
I can think of at least five people it might be, but I'm not one to pinkle
on other people's camp fires, so my lips are sealed.
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 |
|