Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Daniel Harper" <daniel_harper@terralink.net>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: wwww
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:05:34 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Lines: 398
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <pan.2004.02.08.06.16.06.682976@terralink.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> <c0301s$71j$0@pita.alt.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1076220335 13428 128.100.83.246 (8 Feb 2004 06:05:34 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:05:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Pan/0.13.4 (She had eyes like strange sins.)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.191.73.240
X-Spam-Level: Level
X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu (v1.4 Oct 30 2003 22:20:52, 0.0/5.0 2.60)
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 85874 i186719g008456 mailbox4.ucsd.edu)
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2220
On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 15:24:35 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
<snip>
>> 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.
>
How much closer to ten? Would you say someone who weighs 200 pounds is too
overweight for you? 300? 400?
> 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 think a lot of people put it on fairly quickly, and then have a hell of
a time getting it back off again. But the larger point is that making fun
of them is not going to help them.
>> > 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.
>
<snort> I don't think my partner would have to adapt at all if I gained or
lost ten pounds. I doubt she'd even notice, except that I'd have to cinch
my belt in a bit more.
> Airlines will not be redesigning their seating for you. But that's what
> the fat acceptance movement has been lobbying for, for its members.
>
>
<shrug> Depends on the percentage of persons not able to fit into airline
seats.
>> > 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.
>
For many people, lacking the willpower to lose the weight (or having
enough desire to do so for whatever reason) makes obesity, in their case,
an "incurable disease". Is it right for you or I to yell in their faces
(or make horrible jokes towards them on Usenet) just because they're
overweight? I think not.
To me, Christlike behavior does involve helping the sick. That's an
important duty, no doubt about it. But I place a much higher emphasis, in
this situation, on confronting the unjust.
>> 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.
>
>
Depends on the size of the person. But making fun of them online,
especially when they are trying to accept things they feel have not been
able to change, is quite simply wrong.
>> >> >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 missed my point entirely. Go back and read it again.
>> >> >> 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,
>
>
The term "lower criticism" also has a well-known and well-accepted meaning
within biblical studies, but please 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.
>
>
But you think I'm wrong. I accept that, and am willing to listen to what
you have to say. Do you have anything that you find particularly
convincing in a theological sense about a young-earth (or rather omphalos)
position?
>> >> >>> >> > 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.
>
I disagree that Charles C. deserved what you gave to him. His comments
about Jason were pretty much right on the money, and Jason deserved
everything he got and more from him. I wish Charles C. was still around; I
miss having his comments.
(By the way, has anyone had contact with him lately? I know he was in and
out of hospitals, but has anyone had any personal correspondence worth
noting in the last few weeks/months?)
The fact that you used the CV sockpuppet as a voice agreeing with you on
these matters only makes your actions more despicable. I know you consider
what you do "performance art", and I understand that, but if you waltz
into the New York Philharmonic and start painting yourself with motor oil,
you're gonna get some people riled up no matter how good your artistic
inspiration is.
We're trying to have decent conversations here. Sockpuppetry on that level
just gets in the way, and it colors everything that you say (or anyone who
agrees with you says) after that. If some of us keep bringing it up, it's
only because we still remember how disruptive it was at the time.
>> > 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.
>
>
Not really; in fact even John McCoy got a bit of respect after he paid off
on that stupid bet. And we gave Nowhere Man a second chance at a debate
even after he ran from the first one.
I suspect that all of us have had to apologize for something or other on
an electronic forum of some kind; everyone who's been on a forum like this
for any length of time, anyway. The point isn't that we make mistakes, but
how well we learn from them and pick up after ourselves. Many posters felt
(and feel) that your continued "performance art" in the aftermath of the
CV/Charles C. incident is showing that you haven't learned your lesson
about the issue, and that you don't really care about what you did to
Charles except insofar as you got caught.
>> <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.
>
Many. Not all.
>> >> >> 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.
>
Very well. I won't mention it again.
> Uncle Davey
--
...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 |
|