Psychological Aspect of new male posters
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account
NR> I just wonder whether the psycological effects of the new male
NR> nudity are more severe for men than the effects on women ? ie;
NR> billboards , posters etc...
Hmmm. I don't feel particularly adversely affected by male nudity
on billboards. How long have you been having these feelings of being
affected by pictures of male nudity?
NR> The reason I wonder this is because
NR> over the last 10 years male/female role models seem to have been
NR> turned topsy tervy and inside out. Is there a possibility that
NR> because of the more rapid changes of male/female role reversal over
NR> more recent years, the "negative aspects" such as nude billboard
NR> posters & magazines could possibly be having more adverse effect on
NR> the male psychy ? ;ie; as opposed to women who for many years have
NR> been conditioned to such things. Not that I condone it for women
NR> either! I don't. I just wonder if the degree of acceleration of
NR> such changes could possibly amplify the potential side effects, with
NR> un-forseen "undesirable" consequences.
NR> I'm just wondering, not asserting my opinion.
NR> Any ideas Anyone ???
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect you're a nut
case. In particular, I don't think the supposed bad effects of female
nudity on females is all that well established, I doubt that seeing nude
guys is making a lot of difference, and I think your suppositions might
make more sense if you had (a) suggested just what bad effect you think
there may have been and (b) didn't end your note with "these opinions
don't belong to anybody", making me wonder just who you thought was
writing them.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/3611 University Dr 13M/Durham, NC 27707/Software
Consulting and Training/(919) 419-1754 day or night/ aka mar...@cs.unc.edu,
76367...@compuserve.com/"Anyone who tries to `enlighten' you is probably
selling something." -- Jen Howard.
Her Majesty
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account <crma...@mercury.interpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "NR" == News Reader <D.H...@Bom.GOV.AU> writes:
>
>NR> I just wonder whether the psycological effects of the new male
>NR> nudity are more severe for men than the effects on women ? ie;
>NR> billboards , posters etc...
>
>Hmmm. I don't feel particularly adversely affected by male nudity
>on billboards. How long have you been having these feelings of being
>affected by pictures of male nudity?
I think D. Heley brings up some very interesting questions that I don't
particularly want to see so blithely dismissed. It's interesting that zie
does bring them up at this point, because I've been hearing rumblings from
various male friends about this topic.
>NR> The reason I wonder this is because
>NR> over the last 10 years male/female role models seem to have been
>NR> turned topsy tervy and inside out. Is there a possibility that
>NR> because of the more rapid changes of male/female role reversal over
>NR> more recent years, the "negative aspects" such as nude billboard
>NR> posters & magazines could possibly be having more adverse effect on
>NR> the male psychy ? ;ie; as opposed to women who for many years have
>NR> been conditioned to such things. Not that I condone it for women
>NR> either! I don't. I just wonder if the degree of acceleration of
>NR> such changes could possibly amplify the potential side effects, with
>NR> un-forseen "undesirable" consequences.
>
>NR> I'm just wondering, not asserting my opinion.
>NR> Any ideas Anyone ???
>
>Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect you're a nut
>case.
I suspect zie isn't, based on this post, at any rate. Why slap zir down
for asking legitimate questions? Doesn't seem like you, somehow.
>In particular, I don't think the supposed bad effects of female
>nudity on females is all that well established,
I think we may've had this discussion here before; it's one I don't
particularly like arguing with men, particularly men who are pretty well
involved in the, ah, industry, so to speak. But I *know* what using
women's bodies to sell products can do to the psyche of at least some
women, and I'm hearing similar sentiments now from men. I'm seeing a
definite increase in the same kind of stupidity among men that I've always
seen among women -- this sort of "I must have a media-perfect body in
order to be acceptable" stuff. If I were to generalize (what? in
soc.singles??), I'd say that I see it more often among younger men and men
who don't yet have a strong sense of themselves, just as has been the case
with women.
>I doubt that seeing nude
>guys is making a lot of difference, and I think your suppositions might
>make more sense if you had (a) suggested just what bad effect you think
>there may have been and (b) didn't end your note with "these opinions
>don't belong to anybody", making me wonder just who you thought was
>writing them.
>--
>Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/3611 University Dr 13M/Durham, NC 27707/Software
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford Holmes | Though the mills of God grind slowly,
lho...@mcs.com | Yet they grind exceeding small. -- F. Von Logau
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account
In article <CRMARTIN.94...@mercury.interpath.net>,
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account <crma...@mercury.interpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "NR" == News Reader <D.H...@Bom.GOV.AU> writes:
>
>NR> I just wonder whether the psycological effects of the new male
>NR> nudity are more severe for men than the effects on women ? ie;
>NR> billboards , posters etc...
>
>Hmmm. I don't feel particularly adversely affected by male nudity
>on billboards. How long have you been having these feelings of being
>affected by pictures of male nudity?
I think D. Heley brings up some very interesting questions that I don't
particularly want to see so blithely dismissed. It's interesting that zie
does bring them up at this point, because I've been hearing rumblings from
various male friends about this topic.
Fine, this is Liberty Hall. Are you *really* under the impression that
just because *I* think it's dumb that'll stop the discussion? I didn't
think so.
>NR> I'm just wondering, not asserting my opinion.
>NR> Any ideas Anyone ???
>
>Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but I suspect you're a nut
>case.
I suspect zie isn't, based on this post, at any rate. Why slap zir down
for asking legitimate questions? Doesn't seem like you, somehow.
Funny how I always seem to have this reputation for simple sensibility
with everyone until I disagree with them.
Okay, I'll rephrase it: "Not to put too fine a point on it, but I
suspect that you're reacting to a deep feeling of lack of self-worth and
projecting it onto a couple guys with their shirts off."
>In particular, I don't think the supposed bad effects of female
>nudity on females is all that well established,
I think we may've had this discussion here before; it's one I don't
particularly like arguing with men, particularly men who are pretty well
involved in the, ah, industry, so to speak. But I *know* what using
women's bodies to sell products can do to the psyche of at least some
women, and I'm hearing similar sentiments now from men. I'm seeing a
definite increase in the same kind of stupidity among men that I've always
seen among women -- this sort of "I must have a media-perfect body in
order to be acceptable" stuff. If I were to generalize (what? in
soc.singles??), I'd say that I see it more often among younger men and men
who don't yet have a strong sense of themselves, just as has been the case
with women.
Without statistics I can't say anything reasonable about more or less,
but I know I've been a tragic victim of fashion for nigh onto thirty
years, long before there were widely available pictures of naked
*anyone*. I stopped feeling like that as soon as I got over the
disfiguring-scars thing and figured out that I *was* acceptable looking.
In one sentence, I think that worrying about the effects of seeing
pretty people in the media is an *effect* of low self-esteem, rather
than a cause. Unless we take the Vonnegut-esque solution of only
allowing really ugly people to be pictured in advertising, there will
*always* be people who are presented with advert images who are prettier
than they are. If you listen to interviews with supermodels, you find
that they *also* fret all the time about their physical imperfections;
one can hardly argue that *their* problem is not being able to live up
to the idealized images of the media, because they *are* the idealized
images in the media.
God knows this is one of *my* kinks, but I also think this is one of
those ahistorical things that we seem to be so prone to nowadays: the
notion that our time is somehow radically *different* from the past.
But look into Beau Brummel and the Regency period, or the Renaissance in
Italy, or the _Tale of Genji_ and Sei Shonagon in medieval Japan, and
you'll find plenty of first-person or near-first-person accounts of
people worrying that they didn't look right according to the standards
of the time.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/3611 University Dr 13M/Durham, NC 27707/Software
trygve lode
>I just wonder whether the psycological effects of the new male nudity are more
>severe for men than the effects on women ? ie; billboards , posters etc...
What psychological effects? Personally, I think human bodies can be
aesthetically quite pleasing, whether they happen to be male or female;
I wouldn't, however, consider "aesthetic appreciation" to be particularly
severe.
>The reason I wonder this is because over the last 10 years male/female role
>models seem to have been turned topsy tervy and inside out.
You've been watching "Alien" too many times....
>Is there a possibility that because of the more rapid changes of male/female
>role reversal over more recent years, the "negative aspects" such as nude
>billboard posters & magazines could possibly be having more adverse effect
>on the male psychy ? ;ie; as opposed to women who for many years have been
>conditioned to such things. Not that I condone it for women either! I don't.
>I just wonder if the degree of acceleration of such changes could
>possibly amplify the potential side effects, with un-forseen "undesirable"
>consequences.
Peresonally, I don't see how the sight of human bodies can be harmful
in itself; unhealthy attitudes about human bodies, on the other hand....
--
Trygve Lode | 3270 Cherryridge Road, Englewood, CO 80110 | (303) 781-6309
Want a copy of the soc.singles FAQ? Send mail to tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Send SASE for your free copy of the Unnatural Enquirer
Lynn
>I just wonder whether the psycological effects of the new male nudity are more
>severe for men than the effects on women ? ie; billboards , posters etc...
Let's not paint the whole canvas when we really want to add color to
just one aspect of it. :-)
Nudity, generally, isn't the problem. Most people actually like to
see nudes (under the appropriate circumstances.) The worlds MOST
celebrated art is of nudes or seminudes.
So, no. I don't think nudity is damaging anyone's emotional or mental
health. But, I do think that the blantant efforts of advertising to
sell products using so called perfect-body images and implying that a
person can have the same results, if not the body, if one merely uses
the correct makeup, drives the correct car, wears the correct scents,
smokes the correct cigarettes is culturally damaging.
Popular entertainment and commercial advertisements do not reflect
life. They reflect some narrow range of fantasy about visually
appealing sex.
I think the new wave of eating disorders is, in part, a product of
this projection by the decision makers in production studios and
advertising offices.
I also think it isn't ethical.
Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
News Reader
severe for men than the effects on women ? ie; billboards , posters etc...
models seem to have been turned topsy tervy and inside out.
role reversal over more recent years, the "negative aspects" such as nude
billboard posters & magazines could possibly be having more adverse effect
on the male psychy ? ;ie; as opposed to women who for many years have been
conditioned to such things. Not that I condone it for women either! I don't.
I just wonder if the degree of acceleration of such changes could
possibly amplify the potential side effects, with un-forseen "undesirable"
consequences.
I'm just wondering, not asserting my opinion.
Any ideas Anyone ???
All views expressed do not belong to anyone.
======================================================
News Reader (MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS)
BOM
HEAD OFFICE- MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA. 3000
email D.H...@BoM.GOV.AU
Phone + 61 3 669 4174
Fax + 61 3 669 4473
======================================================
Bathsheba Grossman
>Popular entertainment and commercial advertisements do not reflect
>life. They reflect some narrow range of fantasy about visually
>appealing sex.
>Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
> image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
> thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
Not as unpopular an opinion as is widely believed - I notice that the
thinnest strippers don't get the most tips. The most popular build seems
to be 'well-muscled with a good measure of cuddly subcutaneous fat',
followed closely by 'same, but never mind the muscles'.
Regarding my own views, did you ever try to get your head comfortable on a
set of washboard-style abdominals? All things being equal, I'll choose
the pear over the wedge, and twice on Sundays.
-Sheba (Ripped? Bleah.)
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account
In article <Co3vx...@crash.cts.com>, Lynn <l...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>Popular entertainment and commercial advertisements do not reflect
>life. They reflect some narrow range of fantasy about visually
>appealing sex.
>...
>Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
> image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
> thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
Not as unpopular an opinion as is widely believed - I notice that the
thinnest strippers don't get the most tips. The most popular build seems
to be 'well-muscled with a good measure of cuddly subcutaneous fat',
followed closely by 'same, but never mind the muscles'.
Ditto to both: even though my tastes run a little to the thin side, it
*doesn't* keep me from being interested in plumper women (and see e.g.,
Anna Nicole Smith in the new Naked Gun movie, who is much more
Rubenesque than is considered the "standard") and I have also noticed
that stripper places seem to have successful women who are *not*
"standard".
Regarding my own views, did you ever try to get your head comfortable on a
set of washboard-style abdominals? All things being equal, I'll choose
the pear over the wedge, and twice on Sundays.
I've always known we were meant for each other.
Anmar Mirza
Bathsheba Grossman <sh...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <Co3vx...@crash.cts.com>, Lynn <l...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>>Popular entertainment and commercial advertisements do not reflect
>>life. They reflect some narrow range of fantasy about visually
>>appealing sex.
>>...
>>Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
>> image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
>> thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
>
>Not as unpopular an opinion as is widely believed - I notice that the
>thinnest strippers don't get the most tips. The most popular build seems
>to be 'well-muscled with a good measure of cuddly subcutaneous fat',
Suddenly I feel much better about things.
And I even take my clothes off for free...
'well muscled with a good measure of cuddly subQ fat's R us.
(dangerous mood tonight, looking ffer my tool belt. oh Lynn...)
--
Anmar Mirza #Chief of Tranquility #Teach the children quietly, for some
EMT-D N9ISY #Base, Lawrence Co. IN #day sons and daughters will rise up and
Sawyer #Somewhere out on the #fight while we sit still. # IU doesn't
Networks Tech.#Mirza Ranch. DoD#1143 #pay me enough to speak for them.
David G. Wagner
>Regarding my own views, did you ever try to get your head comfortable on a
>set of washboard-style abdominals? All things being equal, I'll choose
>the pear over the wedge, and twice on Sundays.
>
>-Sheba (Ripped? Bleah.)
GOODIE!!!
<heh>
--
Dave Wagner | "Diplomacy is the art of saying
dgwa...@math.uwaterloo.ca | 'nice doggie!' while looking
* * * Party of One * * * | for a rock."
NetHandle := 'Waggie' | -- Tallyrand (?)
Anmar Mirza
>ami...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Anmar Mirza) wrote in soc.singles:
>>
>>(dangerous mood tonight, looking ffer my tool belt. oh Lynn...)
>>
>
Oh my, I got *Lynn* to blush by flirting. Hmmm, does that make me
e-slut champeen?
>What kind of tools?
Oh, the usual, pry bars, claw hammer, screwdrivers (both kinds)
g-string, crescent wrench, the usual.
>Lynn (That's a funny use for a chalk line.....)
>
But it leaves such a neat pattern when you snap it, eh?
Lynn
>
>You should check out the South Bay (Redondo, Manhattan, Hermosa) during the
>Beach Boink. The perfect body image is alive and well out here. Its more than
>just an image, most people have great bodys. Miracle transformations are
>routine. Flabby mid-westen gal/guy gets of the bus and one year later,
>at the most 18 months, has turned into buffed v-ball player. Can't
>see anything culturally damaging about it. Just out of shape people getting
>into shape!
Most people? Excuse me. there are millions of people in the Greater
LA area. At most a fraction appear on the beach with their bodies
hanging out. I live in Southern California. I see a good mix of body
shapes. Many of those who don't fit the body-beautiful image DON't go
to the beach very often. Or if they do, they pick certain beaches.
At least in San Diego.
>Actually, the Hollywood image does the country a lot of good. Otherwise,
>a lot of people would be in a lot worse physical condition. This has a
>dramatic effect on health care costs. Better shape equals lower costs;
>ask Bill Clinton.
What? You must be kidding. The shape 'required' for women,
especially in southern california, doesn't promote good health at all.
the percentage of body fat is too low in most of the young women who
do the beach. they are not getting sufficient nutrition. And most
importantly, many are suffering severe emotional crises.
Being fit does not equate with the hollywood image of the
body-beautiful.
The perfect body promoted by media entertainment and advertising is
NOT possible for most women. At least without surgery. And the fact
the plastic surgery is a huge business in California is proof enough
that we have an unnatural fascination with the shape of the body.
Lynn
>
>What do you mean by "fantasy about visually appealing sex"?
>Sex with visually appealing people is certainly a reality.
>Anyway popular entertainment does reflect life. Maybe not your
>life, but in general its accurate. Perhaps its less accurate once
>you drive across the eastern border of the United States (Pacfic Coast
>Highway), can't really say, never go there.
>
>: Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
>: image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
>: thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
>
>"Big is beautiful" Lynn, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream
>society. You may even have a psychological disorder!
>
>Seek help now.
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, sand...@us17503.mdc.com (David Sandelands) says:
>Lynn (l...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>: D.H...@Bom.GOV.AU (News Reader) wrote in soc.singles:
>
>: So, no. I don't think nudity is damaging anyone's emotional or mental
>: health. But, I do think that the blantant efforts of advertising to
>: sell products using so called perfect-body images and implying that a
>: person can have the same results, if not the body, if one merely uses
>: the correct makeup, drives the correct car, wears the correct scents,
>: smokes the correct cigarettes is culturally damaging.
>
>You should check out the South Bay (Redondo, Manhattan, Hermosa) during the
>Beach Boink. The perfect body image is alive and well out here. Its more than
>just an image, most people have great bodys. Miracle transformations are
>routine. Flabby mid-westen gal/guy gets of the bus and one year later,
>at the most 18 months, has turned into buffed v-ball player. Can't
>see anything culturally damaging about it. Just out of shape people getting
>into shape!
I see nothing wrong with my current shape.
Why trade it for another when I'm appreciated as I am?
>: Popular entertainment and commercial advertisements do not reflect
>: life. They reflect some narrow range of fantasy about visually
>: appealing sex.
>
>Actually, the Hollywood image does the country a lot of good. Otherwise,
>a lot of people would be in a lot worse physical condition. This has a
>dramatic effect on health care costs. Better shape equals lower costs;
>ask Bill Clinton.
Total bullshit, Mon Vieu. Sitting in a taxi for sixty hours a week
suits me fine, and pays the rent. Frolicking on a beach is no way
to make a living unless your parents foot the bills...
Smoking 25 cigs a day soothes the soul along with a triple scotch
after work, and nobody's going to tell me otherwise...
Health care? It costs me very little since I avoid hospitals except
for picking up fares and juicy freight trips...
Hollywood and Volleyball's for culturally depraved pussies after all.
Enjoy the next earthquake...
>What do you mean by "fantasy about visually appealing sex"?
>Sex with visually appealing people is certainly a reality.
>Anyway popular entertainment does reflect life. Maybe not your
>life, but in general its accurate. Perhaps its less accurate once
>you drive across the eastern border of the United States (Pacfic Coast
>Highway), can't really say, never go there.
Ah! The enjoyment of living in a bubble...
Is ignorance a transmitted disease? Sure hope not.
>: Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
>: image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
>: thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
>
>"Big is beautiful" Lynn, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream
>society. You may even have a psychological disorder!
Mainstream society is out of touch with both Lynn and myself.
More's the pity...
*fondle*
--
'dreas... "Be there in ten minutes" ...TwoFive
Pat Steward
>
>"Big is beautiful"?
>Tell me you all are kidding...please!
>
>When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
>a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
>together. Maybe it's due to grad. school or a divorce or
When I meet someone with this attitude, I see a shmuck.
>Personally I find the texture/feel of relaxed muscles on women far,
>far more comfortable than that squishy, jello-like feel of
>fat. I like firm pillows too...
>
>To each their own though right?
Only if we agree with you, apparently.
--
Patricia Martin Steward pat...@oz.plymouth.edu
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is;
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
ments that differentiate me from a doormat. Rebecca West, 1913
hmmm...got_a_good__alias?
> that I wrote:
>> To each their own though right?
>
> umpteen lines of uninformed drivel (look up the Pima Indian experiments
> for Gods sake) and then end it with "To each their own right?" and
> thereby immediately withdraw from his own conclusions.
>
Let me help you out here Chuck...what I wrote
(minus your cute little chomping) was :
"Personally I find the texture/feel of relaxed muscles on women far,
far more comfortable than that squishy, jello-like feel of
fat. I like firm pillows too...
To each their own though right?"
Notice that the "To each their..." comment specifically refers to
my preference for both firm pillows and firm women.
Get that Chuck?
It has nothing to do with my "uniformed drivel" which precedes
said expression of preference.
As for the Pima Indians, I'll look that one up. I do quite a bit
of reading of medical, fitness and nutritional journals in my spare
time and you've got me curious. I will point out that current opinions
point to race as a key factor in nutrition (i.e. Europeans can digest
lactose while most others cannot, Eskimos can live on a high fat diet
without high incidence of heart disease, etc.) so a single-race
study does not necessarily apply to all humans.
Next time please read before you flame Chuck.
I have a philosophy that insulting someone you don't even know
is childish.
Calling someone and idjit when you don't know them only limits
your chance of making a friend.
To each their own though right?
:) :)
Take care all,
-E
---
Eric S. Boltz
My views, opinions and statements in no way reflect those of the U.S. Gov't,
the U.S. Department of Commerce or NIST.
Her Majesty
Pat Steward <pat...@oz.plymouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <Co60J...@bldrdoc.gov> ebo...@nist.gov writes:
>>
>>"Big is beautiful"?
>>Tell me you all are kidding...please!
>>
>>When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
>>a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
>>together. Maybe it's due to grad. school or a divorce or
>
>When I meet someone with this attitude, I see a shmuck.
Yup, definitely Shere Kahn.
Actually, I'd say Pat and piranha could share the honors ... two vastly
different styles, same one-two punch. And besides, piranha has teeth.
--Lauren, who thinks Shere Kahn got a bum rap
hmmm...got_a_good__alias?
I was just notified by email that Charles R. Martin does not
particularly enjoy being called "Chuck".
As I used this nickname in a previous post I thought I would
post an apology...it wasn't an intentional jab Charles, both
of my close friends named Charles go by Chuck.
Oops,
-E
(just call me Schmuck)
Marina Picciotto
>Charley wrote:
>>Next stupid fucking argument, please?
>Comin right up boss:
>I think everyone would be healthier if people paid more attention to:
>pickles.
Pet name for a body part? Is it green, bumpy and sour? Neat!
- marina (think I'd better stop commenting on
body parts for a while)
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account
I was just notified by email that Charles R. Martin does not
particularly enjoy being called "Chuck".
As I used this nickname in a previous post I thought I would
post an apology...it wasn't an intentional jab Charles, both
of my close friends named Charles go by Chuck.
(just call me Schmuck)
Your brownie point score just went up a *long* ways. A *long* ways.
"Charlie" is fine, by the way.
eric_s._boltz
'dreas writes:
> Magazines are just another way of spreading the Hollywood myths.
> The medical, fitness, and nutritional current trends are not always
> correct in the advice they popularize...
>
> It depends on who buys the advertizing space.
I said "journals".
Journals don't have advertisements...I'm not talking about
"men's fitness" or something else you'd buy as a newsstand.
Try these:
Journal of Applied Physiology
Tufts U. Diet and Nutrition Journal
Sports Medicine
Am. Journal of Clinical Nutrition
etc.
The reading is a bit dry but informative.
-E
---
Eric S. Boltz
My views, opinions and statements in no way reflect those of the U.S. Gov't,
the U.S. Department of Commerce or NIST.
,__o
_-\_<, DoD #1150
(*)/'(*) Mountain bikes save lives (from boredom).
eric_s._boltz
that I wrote:
> >I will point out that current opinions
>
> Sieg Heil.
I won't tolerate being called a racist by anyone.
I have a well-earned reputation for zero tolerance of racism
in any form. I've cut off potential friendships over one racist
joke before.
Why?
My two best friends from first through about eighth grade were
both black. One night when one of these friends was staying over
at my house we snuck out at about 2AM and went and messed around
a couple blocks away at a construction site. We were in sixth
grade at the time.
Well, someone saw us and called the cops. We had already left the
construction site when six cop cars surrounded us sirens blaring.
My friend was grabbed, thrown to the ground, handcuffed and searched
right down to his underwear. They even asked him about every piece
of paper in his wallet. He was in tears as any kid that age would be.
No cop ever touched me. They didn't even ask me for ID.
They asked what I was doing out and where I lived and who this boy was.
They didn't believe either of us when we told them he was staying at
my house. It was a nauseating experience.
The details of what I've done to support affirmative action for both
minorities and women are unimportant. Understand that, by calling
me a racist, you've insulted me to a point of real anger. You've
made a hasty, stupid jab at someone because you think it's wit.
My guess is that your real hands-on, experience on these issues is
nil. You can discuss and insult but you do nothing substantial.
You're the most sickening part of the problem; you're a talk-big
but do nothing type aren't ya?
As for nutrition and race...open your teeny little mind and realize
that physiological differences are real. They don't make anyone
superior and they're no more subjective than the value of pi.
Joyful!
>: Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
>: image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
>: thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
>
>"Big is beautiful" Lynn, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream
>society. You may even have a psychological disorder!
You, David, need a lesson (or twenty) in acceptance and tolerance of other
people's opinions and viewpoints. Not everyone likes to be in touch with
"mainstream society". Some people feel that m.s. puts needless and
unrealistic restricitions on personal preferences. Lynn most certainly does
not have a psychological disorder (at least where this topic is concerned =).
Lynn just happens to like being independent and free thinking, instead of
blindly following cultural and societal tendencies, and most of us happen to
like Lynn that way. Many others in this group think that way as well, and are
able to accept when someone has a different viewpoint without thinking that
they have psychological problems. Get a grip, and get your own life instead
of the mainstream one you seem to be sharing.
Joyful! (We are Borg, resistance is futile. Yeah, right.)
// LakeTravisBoink, May 13-15, '94! Email to get on mailing list! \\
\\ "Look at this stuff! Isn't it neat?" - The Little Mermaid //
// Joyce A. Fitzgerald -- Disney Chemical Addict -- Fluff Bunny \\
\\ Motorola, RISC Division, Applications Design, Austin, TX //
nvon...@msuvx1.memphis.edu
> Just a little something to consider:
> When two hands are busy with a deli kosher they don't have time to post
> personals. Not to mention what better way to meat that special someone
> than with a "I'll show you my pickle if you'll show me yours" Aghhhh.
>
My pesonal favorite is "bread-and-butter" pickles. They're sliced BTW.
> -Idle hands are the work of the devil.
Go slice some pickles.
"Lorena...Jeem"
"Jeem...Lorena"
"What a darling couple!"
(I think she needs a green card too)
Nancy *snork*
**************************************************************************
I hear and I forget
I see and I remember
I do and I understand
-Chinese Proverb
eric_s._boltz
Frank claims:
> and making a blanket statement
> based on little if any real data, as you did, is a foolish thing to do.
Give me that blanket statement Frank. Come on, you can do better
than referring to a hazy memory!
I currently consult nine people on nutrition and strength training.
Before the steroid advocates took over misc.fitness I was a high-volume
poster with a reputation for providing references from peer-reviewed
journals for all of my claims and recommendations. I know more about
nutrition and fitness than most.
Would you like me to explain why people, like the Pima Indians, can
have large fat deposits while eating a marginal diet. I can. Just ask.
If you want a beginner's book that isn't to difficult to understand
try Covert Bailey's "Fit or Fat" ; it's a good starting point for
understanding how to live longer and healthier.
> My heart fairly bleeds for you, oh maligned one. (Note: This is sarcasm.
> I know you don't get that there at NIST.)
Sarcasm is the weapon of fools and no, we don't have many of those here.
Feel free to send a resume nonetheless. I'll put in a good word for you.
> Not everyone
> is attracted to the conventional idea of beauty,
Neither am I, and if you could keep your posts straight you'd know
that I'm currently HOH for a non-"conventional" beauty. She's nothing
like the Hollywood's image, but she dazzles me like no other.
You'd also remember my conveyance of the fact that of the several
"conventional" beauties that I've dated this past year, all have
lost their attractiveness (to me) after getting to know them better.
Do I claim that physical attraction is unimportant? Hell no.
Do I claim that the "conventional" definition of physical attraction
is mine? Obviously not.
That doesn't change the fact that how a person treats their body - not
what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
> but that does _not_ make
> them "sick," as you (it _was_ you, right?) accused Lynn.
No, it was not I. That would be the Redondo Beach person.
Bad memory Frank.
You don't even know what I posted do you Frank? Pathetic.
Go back and read the post or tell me to email you a copy of
it if you can't figure out how to retrieve old posts.
I've read it several times now trying to see how people were
offended by a post that said :
"it's not about shape or weight, but health"
and
"I know plenty of active, healthy people who could never model swimwear"
and all I can guess is that my response to Sheba's bashing on the
discomfort of washboard abs offended people with beer guts.
And yes, if you are not trying to better yourself I *do* condemn that.
> Believe me, you deserved it, in spades.
> I may disagree with Charlie, and he may be aggravating as
> hell, but his name is "Charlie" or "Charles." Not "Chuck." I know you
> apologized (half-heartedly), but it was stupid to do it in the first place.
Charles applied one sentence of mine to my entire post when it
wasn't inteded that way. I corrected this misunderstanding and
in so doing used the name "Chuck".
As for the apology,it wasn't half-hearted and I made it publicly
because I wanted people like you to understand that it wasn't
meant that way. Unfortunately you didn't quite get it.
Furhtermore you know perfectly well that it was
*your* email that first alerted me to the fact that Charles does
not like the name "Chuck". Your two-faced nature is intriguing
though quite nauseating.
On second thought, keep the resume.
Bathsheba Grossman
David Sandelands <sand...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
>Lynn (l...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>: Lynn (Yes. I do mean fuck off, asshole.)
>
>Gee Lynn,
> When faced with a woman <snip snap> However, I realize now
>that you are neither maiden nor mother, but are a crone. Seeing as how
>the horned god has long since past you by, I regret the torment my posts
>have caused you.
You, sir, are confused. Presumptuous also. In addition, mistaken. Might I
finally add, ridiculous. Why, our rosy-fingered Lynn has scarcely departed
his blushing teens.
- Sheba
Frank Mayhar
|> Frank claims:
|> > and making a blanket statement
|> > based on little if any real data, as you did, is a foolish thing to do.
|> Give me that blanket statement Frank. Come on, you can do better
|> than referring to a hazy memory!
You asked for it:
In article <Co9EB...@bldrdoc.gov>, "Hmmm...got a good alias?" writes:
|> "Big is beautiful"?
|>
|> Tell me you all are kidding...please!
and
|> Folks here are trying to make it sound like it's the healthy
|> people who care about their bodies who are the strange ones.
|> Yeah, right.
|> When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
|> a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
|> together. Maybe it's due to grad. school or a divorce or
|> their childhood, but how can anyone say that having
|> a run-down body is normal?
You made two blanket statements. One was in questioning that "big is
beautiful," and the other was in reference to "folks here." You wander
in and immediately think you know exactly what is going on, without bothering
to read and understand, just like every other idiot newbie. _That's_ why
you were called an asshole, asshole.
You know, you wouldn't even be worth reading if you weren't so f*cking
full of yourself and convince that you have a monopoly on what's right.
You're not even _entertainly_ stupid, you're just stupid.
|> That doesn't change the fact that how a person treats their body - not
|> what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
Bullshit. It's no more a reflection of their so-called "true self" than
is their shoe size.
|> No, it was not I. That would be the Redondo Beach person.
|> Bad memory Frank.
|> You don't even know what I posted do you Frank? Pathetic.
|> Go back and read the post or tell me to email you a copy of
|> it if you can't figure out how to retrieve old posts.
You're right, it wasn't you, now that I go back and reread some of the
thread. I guess all idiot newbies eventually start to sound alike.
|> I've read it several times now trying to see how people were
|> offended by a post that said :
|> "it's not about shape or weight, but health"
|> and
|> "I know plenty of active, healthy people who could never model swimwear"
People (at least one people, me) were offended by your implication that
you know better than we do about our own bodies.
|> and all I can guess is that my response to Sheba's bashing on the
|> discomfort of washboard abs offended people with beer guts.
I cordially invite you to come over here and examine my "beer gut" closely.
It's redundant, but I'll say it again: You're an idiot.
|> And yes, if you are not trying to better yourself I *do* condemn that.
Fortunately, none of us here are living our lives to please you.
|> > Believe me, you deserved it, in spades.
|> > I may disagree with Charlie, and he may be aggravating as
|> > hell, but his name is "Charlie" or "Charles." Not "Chuck." I know you
|> > apologized (half-heartedly), but it was stupid to do it in the first place.
|> Charles applied one sentence of mine to my entire post when it
|> wasn't inteded that way. I corrected this misunderstanding and
|> in so doing used the name "Chuck".
In a nauseatingly condescending tone.
|> As for the apology,it wasn't half-hearted and I made it publicly
|> because I wanted people like you to understand that it wasn't
|> meant that way. Unfortunately you didn't quite get it.
You were still condescending when you apologized.
|> Furhtermore you know perfectly well that it was
|> *your* email that first alerted me to the fact that Charles does
|> not like the name "Chuck". Your two-faced nature is intriguing
|> though quite nauseating.
"Two-faced," huh? Listen, idiot, I thought you had a sense of humor. I
was apparently quite wrong. And how to you get from the sentence (which
I quote from my email):
|> He may be in my killfile for the moment, but his name is emphatically _not_
|> Chuck.
to me being "two-faced?" Could it be you are jumping to conclusions? Could
it be that you are painting with too broad a brush? Oh, nooooo, not Eric.
Now Fuck Off(tm), and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Come back when you grow up.
--
Frank Mayhar fma...@acsc.com
Advanced Computing Systems Company
3000 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite 400, LA, CA 90034 (310) 815-4858
Pardon me, I think I lost a temper somewhere around here, has anyone seen it?
Frank Mayhar
David Sandelands <sand...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
>To all those who emailed me. You are right, I am an idiot to have
>missed this.
Nope. You're just an idiot.
--
Frank Mayhar fma...@acsc.com
Advanced Computing Systems Company
3000 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite 400, LA, CA 90034 (310) 815-4858
Quite a crop of 'em this spring, too.
Bathsheba Grossman
>> Sheba wrote:
>>> did you ever try to get your head comfortable on a
>>> set of washboard-style abdominals?
>>
>> Muscles of any sort are hard only when flexed.
Don't call me Sheba, you haven't earned it. Assuming that I'm an idiot
isn't going to help any of your arguments.
>> Did you ever try to keep your head from rolling off a beer
>> belly?
>>
>> Personally I find the texture/feel of relaxed muscles on women far,
>> far more comfortable than that squishy, jello-like feel of
>> fat. I like firm pillows too...
Men, pupster, are built different than women. Let me encourage you to keep
at it with the pillows, though.
- Sheba
Dr. Brat
>
> NR> I just wonder whether the psycological effects of the new male
> NR> nudity are more severe for men than the effects on women ? ie;
> NR> billboards , posters etc...
>
OOOOOOh! Lookie here! And here I was thinking that this thread had
something to do with the mental makeup of men posting to soc.singles for
the first time. *sigh* I hate it when I do that.
Elizabeth (overwhelmed by the volume and skipping around)
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Car a l'etre ques nous avons le plus aime nous ne sommes pas si fideles qu'a
nous-memes, et nous l'oublierons tot ou tard pour pouvoir, puisque ce fait
partie de nous-memes, recommencer a aimer.
-Proust
Pat Steward
>In article <1994Apr14.1...@oz.plymouth.edu> pat...@oz.plymouth.edu (Pat Steward) writes:
>>
>>Oh, bullshit. You had plenty to say about fat people.
>
>Then quote it Patricia. Arguing and cussing don't change
>reality. I'm sure my posts are still in your spool. Do some
>chompless quoting or shut up.
Pleased to:
In article <Co60J...@bldrdoc.gov> ebo...@nist.gov writes:
>"Big is beautiful"?
>Tell me you all are kidding...please!
>
>When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
>a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
>together. Maybe it's due to grad. school or a divorce or
>their childhood, but how can anyone say that having
>a run-down body is normal?
>
>The same out-of-shapers would fix their cars if they
>broke. Why won't they fix their primary, can't-be-traded-in
>vehicle in this world?
>
>Maybe it's because the *real* programming is :
>if you can't buy it at KMart,
>if it isn't disposable,
>if you can't order it by phone or from your car,
>if you can't do it while sitting on your ass...then
>IT ISN'T WORTH THE TROUBLE
>
>Did you ever try to keep your head from rolling off a beer
>belly?
>
>Personally I find the texture/feel of relaxed muscles on women far,
>far more comfortable than that squishy, jello-like feel of
>fat. I like firm pillows too...
Now try to tell me you didn't *really* mean those statements in the
pejorative sense.
Graydon
Eric, the problem was your initial blanket statement about
fat people; I can't go back and quote it, but it's the first
line or two of your original post.
You are making the mistake that being :right:, in a technical
or scientific sense, is neccessarily emotionally meaningful to
the people with whom one is conversing. Particularly in the
case of the particular issue of body image, which is typically
*not* a source of self esteem for people, the sort of flat
corrections appropriate to mathematics are a social disaster.
Graydon
piranha
>
[cliched platitudes]
>
when i meet someone who's let their mind rot, i see both
a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
cissism, but how can anyone say that having a run-down mind
is normal?
-piranha
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account
Your post read to me very much as though it equated "fat" with "unhealthy"
and furthermore equated "fat" with not having a sound mind.
No to mention the suggestino that Lynn needed psychological help for his
suggestion that "big is beautiful".
piranha
>
[in response to lynn, who's had a fine plonking day]
>
>And you make conclusions about people you don't know.
takes one to know one, eh? that log in your eye, doesn't
it impair your vision just a bit? what, you never noticed?
-piranha
eric_s._boltz
> that I wrote:
> |> That doesn't change the fact that how a person treats their body - not
> |> what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
>
> Bullshit. It's no more a reflection of their so-called "true self" than
> is their shoe size.
You live in a warped shadow of reality Frank.
Shoe size is *genetic*.
How one treats their body is not.
Self respect, like respect of others, is a *choice*.
Your version of logic, that people are not responsible for their
behavior, is how people justify the most horrific deeds. I'll
never agree with that idea Frank. Never.
Unfortunately, yours is the dominant philosophy in our
society today. No fault everything. Doesn't seem to be working
too well.
> You're right, it wasn't you, now that I go back and reread some of the
> thread. I guess all idiot newbies eventually start to sound alike.
And a few old timers can't handle ideas that aren't their own.
They discover their bodies too late in life to do anything
about their own health and get angry at those who advocate
a healthy lifestyle from day one.
> People (at least one people, me) were offended by your implication that
> you know better than we do about our own bodies.
What you seem to be offended by is the notion that the flesh
is as much a part of one's existence as the mind or soul and,
like the others, requires care and upkeep by its occupant.
> You're an idiot.
Sure Frank, sure. Just please don't tell ,ok? I've had everyone
fooled for so long it might crush them. At least let me finish
my dissertation...k?
> Fortunately, none of us here are living our lives to please you.
I would certainly hope not.
> You were still condescending when you apologized.
Bullshit. While I can condescend with the best, when I apologize
I mean it. If you don't believe that, so what? I know I meant it
and I certainly hope that Charles knows I meant it. Your need
to pass judgement on words which weren't directed at you is
terribly juvenile. "Liar, liar, pants on fire..." whatever.
> |>Your two-faced nature is intriguing
> |> though quite nauseating.
>
> "Two-faced," huh? And how to you get from the sentence (which
> I quote from my email):
>
> |> He may be in my killfile for the moment, but his name is emphatically
> |>_not_ Chuck.
>
> to me being "two-faced?" Could it be you are jumping to conclusions?
Quite simple Frank. You notified me, as if you gave a shit, that I had
used a nickname which Charles finds insulting. I thanked you for
pointing this out and promptly (check the post time compared with your email
time) posted an apology; I'm pretty sure it was within one minute of
my receipt of your mail. In spite of my swift attempt to rectify my
mistake, YOU, not Charles, accused me of using the nickname as an
insult when in fact you KNEW that I had not. That's two-faced behavior.
Are you still a communist Frank?
Please don't set me up like that again...it might be entertaining
but it's childish and mean.
> Now Fuck Off(tm), and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
> Come back when you grow up.
Frank, you've been putting a tad too much sugar on your breakfast cereal
again. Now take a deep breath and count to ten.
Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
Newbie? Nah Frank, I've posted here quite a few times over the last
four years.
No, I've not been a regular here because misc.fitness, rec.climbing,
rec.motorcycles, rec.sport.triathlons and the .veg groups have been
my hang-outs.
But, to make you happy, I'll stick around and post enough so that
someday I too can be like you...well, minus the anger.
Peace Frank.
I don't know you well enough to be any meaner I'm afraid.
-E
--
Eric S. Boltz
My views, opinions and statements in no way reflect those of the U.S. Gov't,
the U.S. Department of Commerce or NIST.
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, jj...@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (james.j.dutton) says:
>Please try to keep the references to Einstein to a minimum but, the
>worlds problems have been solved. It was all so simple. Right in front
>of the old nasal cavities. Hunger in the war torn cities of Yugoslavia?
>*pish* Not if we airdrop pickles.
Jeem, your kindness and sensitivity has finally reached not only me,
but all of my extended family back in the old country.
Tovorniks the world over are in your debt...
Every one of them is busy right now sending you his seester.
--
'dreas... Nocturnally living behind the wheel of a taxi... TwoFive
Andreas Tovornik
In a previous article, Eric S. Boltz () says:
>
>'dreas writes:
>
>> Magazines are just another way of spreading the Hollywood myths.
>> The medical, fitness, and nutritional current trends are not always
>> correct in the advice they popularize...
>>
>> It depends on who buys the advertizing space.
>
>I said "journals".
>
>Journals don't have advertisements...I'm not talking about
>"men's fitness" or something else you'd buy as a newsstand.
Whatever...
>Try these:
>Journal of Applied Physiology
>Tufts U. Diet and Nutrition Journal
>Sports Medicine
>Am. Journal of Clinical Nutrition
>etc.
>
>The reading is a bit dry but informative.
Still, who's to say whether or not the current medical
or nutritional opinions are correct?
Each of us is unique, and there are many variations
among individuals. Something that may be healthy for
you might be dangerous for me, and vice versa...
I used to run ten miles a day but my knees gave me
problems after a year. Would taking up running be a
healthy proposition today if my knees would get worse,
making me unable to walk in the future?
I hope my example illustrates the point that you can't
take everything you read as the truth...
Andreas Tovornik
[Anger doesn't play well on the net...]
In a previous article, Eric S. Boltz () says:
>'dreas wrote:
>that I wrote:
>> >I will point out that current opinions
>> >point to race as a key factor in nutrition...
>>
>> Sieg Heil.
>
>I won't tolerate being called a racist by anyone.
Nobody called you a racist. I hailed you in German.
You made an assumption in your mind, and it's a little like
your offensive little critique of people who carry some excess
bodymass who end up not feeling worthy because they don't live
up to the body beautiful image.
Oh yes, you can give out criticism but seem to have trouble
taking any, pal.
>I have a well-earned reputation for zero tolerance of racism
>in any form. I've cut off potential friendships over one racist
>joke before.
Well, good for you. You're a credit to your species.
[Messing around on construction sites deleted]
>The details of what I've done to support affirmative action for both
>minorities and women are unimportant. Understand that, by calling
>me a racist, you've insulted me to a point of real anger. You've
>made a hasty, stupid jab at someone because you think it's wit.
Now you've jumped to two conclusions, I cherish this...
>My guess is that your real hands-on, experience on these issues is
>nil.
You really relish clutching at straws, don't you?
>You can discuss and insult but you do nothing substantial.
Look Ma! He knows every little thing about me!
>You're the most sickening part of the problem; you're a talk-big
>but do nothing type aren't ya?
Problem? I think you're the one with a problem since you're capable
of fantasizing everything about me from a few simple words that I
typed out and posted to a newsgroup...
>As for nutrition and race...open your teeny little mind
Well, at least you didn't say anything about dick size.
*smooch*
Eric Scott Boltz
>different interpretation than you intend from your post, there just
>might be something in your post which lends itself to that
>interpretation.
Sydney your level-headed reasoning is on the mark.
I did make a careless post.
I've spent (probably too) many years posting to misc.fitness.
Over there many people know me well and have read enough of my
posts that I don't have to work very hard to avoid being misunderstood.
I honestly didn't mean to insult anyone. I also honestly intended to
express my belief that self-respect is vital and is reflected in how
one treats their body, mind and soul.
Though I can make myself look like a grand ass, I truly am not a
bigot and I definitely don't endorse any Hollywood image of
beauty.
>Your post read to me very much as though it equated "fat" with "unhealthy"
>and furthermore equated "fat" with not having a sound mind. Now, your
>idea of "let yourself go" and "fat" might be different from the general
>image called to mind by the media, in which 140 lb women of average height
>are exhorted to lose 25 lbs. But if so, you might want to make that rather
>more clear.
Let me then (and thanks for the chance, BTW).
My sister weighed about 300lbs. two years ago. She had a gastro-intestinal
disorder which prompted her to eat poorly. She didn't exercise.
She was unhealthy.
Today, with the help of a nutritionist and an exercise regimen, she
has lost about 100-110 lbs. She would certainly be considered "fat"
by most of our society. She can, however, ski like a wild-woman,
hit a softball out of the park and rock climb quite well. She has
become a confident, healthy individual and one who I admire profoundly.
On the flip side, my ex-SO and best friend is an emaciated woman who
doesn't exercise. She's about 5'7" and about 100 lbs. I love her
as my sister, but she is not healthy. I honestly believe that her
inattention to her physical well-being plays a big role in her
own self-image which is very negative.
When I was in grad school I too had a negative self image. Setting and
attaining fitness goals helped me to regain that self-confidence and
my work and interactions with others (except on s.s. :) have benefitted
from this.
>Personally, I found the implication that fat people don't have sound minds
>or are suffering from mental problems (moreso than the rest of the population
>at any rate :) rather offensive. One of the sweetest, best adjusted,
>wisest people I know weighs 300 lbs. She has three well adjusted, productive,
>happily married kids and a husband who has (understandably) adored her for the
>last 40 years. She can also work me off my feet even when I'm in good shape.
>Yet all her life, she has been exhorted not to "let herself go" and treated as
>though she were somehow worth less because of her fat. Right now I'm fat.
>I've been fat before (as a teen); I've also been "weight proportional to
>height" and I find the difference in how many people treat me to vary between
>disgusting and ridiculous.
The "sound body, sound mind" cliche was, to say the least, insensitive.
For that I apologize (though Frank won't believe me).
If I were to try to communicate that thought again (yep, I'm going to)
what I'd say would be that how we treat our bodies is important.
As for the way "fat" people are treated in our society, you're right again.
Much of it is societal programming and much of it is immaturity. I will
admit (donning flamesuit) that as a younger man (read:boy) I was likely
to draw conclusions about people based on their appearance. At some point
(I was 23) I vividly recall the first time that, while talking, I was
attracted to someone whose exterior wasn't "right" according to my
programming, whatever. What can I say? Right now I'm so madly HOH
for a non-conventional that it hurts.
I hope I haven't made an ass of myself yet again.
And thank you Sydney for a thoughtful and insightful followup.
-E
David Sandelands
: Eric, you might want to consider that if a number of people draw a
: different interpretation than you intend from your post, there just
: might be something in your post which lends itself to that
: interpretation.
: Your post read to me very much as though it equated "fat" with "unhealthy"
: and furthermore equated "fat" with not having a sound mind. Now, your
: idea of "let yourself go" and "fat" might be different from the general
: image called to mind by the media, in which 140 lb women of average height
: are exhorted to lose 25 lbs. But if so, you might want to make that rather
: more clear.
According to the American Heart Association, being more
than about 15% overweight can defintely be equated with unhealthy. Also a women who is of average height, say 5'4"-5'5", at 140 lbs is somewhat overweight.
Certainly not 25 lbs overweight, but a few.
: Personally, I found the implication that fat people don't have sound minds
: or are suffering from mental problems (moreso than the rest of the population
: at any rate :) rather offensive. One of the sweetest, best adjusted,
: wisest people I know weighs 300 lbs. She has three well adjusted, productive,
: happily married kids and a husband who has (understandably) adored her for the
: last 40 years. She can also work me off my feet even when I'm in good shape.
: Yet all her life, she has been exhorted not to "let herself go" and treated as
: though she were somehow worth less because of her fat. Right now I'm fat.
: I've been fat before (as a teen); I've also been "weight proportional to
: height" and I find the difference in how many people treat me to vary between
: disgusting and ridiculous.
: Sydney
Offensive or not, one has to question why an otherwise healthy (I assume no
medical problems) woman weighs 300 lbs. Sure some people naturally store more
fat than others, so perhaps for this woman 140 or even 150 would be a
normal weight, but not 300. One would think some minor psychological problems
are at work here. Maybe you friend suffers from extreme boredom or doesn't like sex, or in this one area of her life lacks disipline.
--
The above statements reflect the oppinions of the cyber personality
Dave Sandelands. This cyber personaltity exists solely to provoke debate.
Statements made by this artificial ego DO NOT REFLECT the beliefs of any
living individuals who may have the misfortune to also use this name.
Dave Sandelands is a certified graduate of Harry Flashman's School For Boys.
Dave has thoroughly mastered the Flashman method for societal advancement.
Dave demonstrated outstanding ability in the Flashman techniques
for dealing with women.
Graydon
Brat) says, quoting Eric:
>> Sure, I could spend that time watching TV,
>> rn-ing or searching for partners, but the fact remains
>> that all else in life is that much better when the cage
>> your stuck in is running to spec.
I *thought* this was there the first time around. One of the
finest captive examples of the Catharist mind-body duality on
the net.
_This_ is the concrete mistake, Eric, the thing that you will
find not a shred of evidence for outside the beliefs of certain
religions - the mind/body 'duality' is a biological continum,
and not a duality at all.
There are a *lot* of things that the Medieval Catholic Church
declared heretical that I disagree rather violently with, but
that one, they got right. (Their methods still sucked flint,
but that's hardly surprising.)
Graydon
Mary
>>>When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
>>>a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
And what you see is not always what is really going on.
>>Patricia Martin Steward wrote:
>>When I meet someone with this attitude, I see a shmuck.
>...alias? writes:
>Why? Because I have a hard time respecting someone who doesn't respect
>hirself?
I think you have this backwards. It seems to me that people who feel the need
to conform to the hollywood image of what is attractive have less respect for
themselves than people who are comfortable with what they look like. I
don't believe that one can judge how much respect a person has for
hirself by the shape of hir body.
What is your definition of people who have "let themselves go?" Does this
mean that the person is simply heavy? How do you know the condition of the
person's cardiovascular system just by looking at hir?
>>>To each their own though right?
>>Only if we agree with you, apparently.
>Look, I don't endorse - in any way - the "Hollywood Image". I made
>that perfectly clear when I said:
>" I'm not talking about shape or weight, but health (i.e. can you
>enjoy physically challenging activity or would you hack
>up a lung?)"
But your measure of health seems to be equivalent to the "Hollywood Image."
>I've never judged a person (or potential SO) on their waist size. If said
>person is unhealthy, however, I don't see that as attractive.
But you just said that you prefered muscular women and you didn't like the
feeling of fat. That sounds to me like you're judging a person based on hir
waist size.
>Do you really think it's ok for a person to neglect their physical
>well-being?
No. But it is also not ok to judge other people and claim that they don't
have their shit together because they don't see that as important and don't
share your beliefs.
Mary
eric_s._boltz
'dreas wrote:
> Still, who's to say whether or not the current medical
> or nutritional opinions are correct?
Certainly not I. I think much of Western medicine is a crock.
The studies, when presented in bare form, can allow
one to draw their own conclusions (or none at all) however.
I'm quite certain that fifty years from now people will
view today's medicine in much the same way as we currently
view the historical use of leeches.
> Each of us is unique, and there are many variations
> among individuals. Something that may be healthy for
> you might be dangerous for me, and vice versa...
No doubt about it. I get major asthma attacks from
eating dried peaches. My scoliosis and degenerative
disc syndrome prevent me from playing impact sports
like rugby or football, etc. We definitely have to know
ourselves, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from
others...even when they're downright wrong.
> I used to run ten miles a day but my knees gave me
> problems after a year. Would taking up running be a
> healthy proposition today if my knees would get worse,
> making me unable to walk in the future?
(of course not)
Running, in general, is very hard on the knees and back.
I blew out my knees last Summer. I run now, but only
because my dog loves it (he can't walk well but runs like
a champ due to a car hit) and the trails near my house
are closed to mountain bikes.
> I hope my example illustrates the point that you can't
> take everything you read as the truth...
As someone who evaluates research proposals you can bet
I'm one hell of a skeptic. Unique health problem in my
family (mine included) have bred a strong mistrust for
the medical industry. I do, however, feel I can learn
from what they have to say even if I don't agree with
their methods or conclusions.
-E
Enjoying the oh-so-slightly cooler temps on s.s. today...
eric_s._boltz
> >'dreas wrote:
> >that I wrote:
> >> >I will point out that current opinions
> >> >point to race as a key factor in nutrition...
> >>
> >> Sieg Heil.
> >
> >I won't tolerate being called a racist by anyone.
>
> Nobody called you a racist. I hailed you in German.
I think the appropriate response to your claim is:
"Yeah, right."
-E
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
(snip)
>Sydney D. Hoeltzli (sydney@bcserv) wrote:
>: One of the sweetest, best adjusted, wisest people I know weighs 300 lbs.
>:She has three well adjusted, productive, happily married kids and a
>:husband who has (understandably) adored her for the last 40 years. She
>:can also work me off my feet even when I'm in good shape.
>: Yet all her life, she has been exhorted not to "let herself go" and
>:treated as though she were somehow worth less because of her fat. (..)
>Offensive or not, one has to question why an otherwise healthy woman
>woman weighs 300 lbs. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We do? Why? I don't see the need. She's a sweet, wonderful, giving,
caring loving person, and the reasons she weighs what she weighs seem
like nobody's business but hers. Why should it change how people treat
her? Why should she be subjected to a barrage of messages about how
unworthy she is, intrusive speculation and amateur psychoanalysis about
why she is as she is, and exhortations to change herself?
>One would think some minor psychological problems
>are at work here. Maybe you friend suffers from extreme boredom or doesn't
>like sex, or in this one area of her life lacks disipline.
Then again, maybe not. I can remember when women with severe
PMS or menstrual cramps were told they had psychological problems.
Then a physiological basis was discovered. Medical history is full
of such turnabouts.
Look, chumbucket. Turn most people inside out and shake 'em, and
you can uncover a "minor psychological problem" or three or six.
Would you care to explain why certain characteristics which may
or may not signal the presence of any more psychological problems
than you or anyone else actually have are taken as an invite to amateur
psychoanalysis hour with a side order of moral judgement ("lacks
discipline") seasoned with outburts of public derision? Furthermore,
whether or not the cause is psychological, why should it lead people to
treat her as worth less than the slender woman standing beside her (who
could be an alcoholic who beats her kids or a vicious psychotic bitch
from hell[tm] for all anyone knows)?
I've heard people do the same thing to smokers, come to think on,
the ol' moral judgement and psychoanalysis hour with a side of public
derision. I don't like cigarette smoke, and I'm allergic to it -- so
I try not to breathe it, and I probably wouldn't be interested in dating
a smoker. But I don't make a moral or psychological issue out why some
people continue to smoke despite the proven health risks.
So no, I don't see why "one must question" any such thing.
I cast my vote for MYOB and do your damnedest to treat people
alike regardless.
I wrote:
>: I've been fat before (as a teen); I've also been "weight proportional
>:to height" and I find the difference in how many people treat me to vary
>:between disgusting and ridiculous.
I rest my case.
Sydney
Mary
>According to the American Heart Association, being more
>than about 15% overweight can defintely be equated with unhealthy. Also a women
>who is of average height, say 5'4"-5'5", at 140 lbs is somewhat overweight.
>Certainly not 25 lbs overweight, but a few.
Not necessarily. Many female body builders are around 5'5" and 140 lbs, but
their percentage of body fat is extremely low. If someone, even if she is not
a body builder, falls into that category, she simply weighs more than what she
is told she is "supposed" to weigh. It does not mean she is overweight. In
fact, if you look on the weight charts, a woman of that hight and of medium
bone size is well within the medically recommended weight range. I am 5'4"
and when I weight 140 lbs, I don't look overweight, I wear a size 10, and it
would be unhealthy for me to be any thinner because that is just the way my
body is.
[Re: people who are overweight having psychological problems)
>Offensive or not, one has to question why an otherwise healthy (I assume no
>medical problems) woman weighs 300 lbs. Sure some people naturally store more
>fat than others, so perhaps for this woman 140 or even 150 would be a
>normal weight, but not 300. One would think some minor psychological problems
>are at work here. Maybe you friend suffers from extreme boredom or doesn't like
>sex, or in this one area of her life lacks disipline.
This is absolute horse crap. The implication that being overweight means the
person has psychological problems is a result of media propoganda. You've
fallen for it, and that is too bad. There are a number of factors which
affect a person's weight. The mechanisms are so complicated that the medical
profession is at a loss. Diet and exercise don't work. Therapy doesn't work.
And, the idea that it is a lack of discipline is propogated by the people who
have no idea what it is like to try to lose weight.
Mary
Graydon
Sandelands) says:
>According to the American Heart Association, being more
>than about 15% overweight can defintely be equated with unhealthy. Also a
>women
>who is of average height, say 5'4"-5'5", at 140 lbs is somewhat overweight.
>Certainly not 25 lbs overweight, but a few.
Turtle guano.
First off, the idea that an 'average weight' is meaningful across
the whole range of human body forms is nonsense; bone structure,
build, and muscle structure all affect this, and simplistic
approaches based on weight are just plain wrong. (The Canadian
Forces changed it's weight policy in a hurry when it realized the
the majority of those faced with dismissal for being 'overweight'
were the Airborne lunatics who could bench press five hundred pounds.)
The idea that human metabolism is well understood is also completely
ludicrous; there are a lot of things that happen for no discernable
reason.
You might also want to check out the changes in those recommended
weight charts - there is a steady progression towards lighter
and lighter weights for women, which change is not given a reason.
The theory that 'fat' is replacing 'original sin' as the basis
for attempting to insure social conformity through guilt has a
degree of truth to it.
Graydon
Bathsheba Grossman
Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
>In article <2omi7j$9...@lynx.unm.edu>, sand...@us17503.mdc.com (David
>Sandelands) says:
>>than about 15% overweight can defintely be equated with unhealthy. Also a
>>Certainly not 25 lbs overweight, but a few.>
>Turtle guano.
Yea, and worse.
<perfectly good paragraph deleted>
>You might also want to check out the changes in those recommended
>weight charts - there is a steady progression towards lighter
>and lighter weights for women, which change is not given a reason.
I'm not sure this is true - last I heard the insurance tables were going
up, as people got bigger and fatter and more uninsurable.
>The theory that 'fat' is replacing 'original sin' as the basis
>for attempting to insure social conformity through guilt has a
>degree of truth to it.
I'll say. The post about the bad boss making a woman feel fat first and
ugly second (I forget who it was, shamefully) was hard enough without that
little fillip. I thank all the powers that food is just food to me -
there's more and better when I have money, and that's about what there is
to it.
On exercise, I hold to the Konrad Lorenz theory: the minimum sensible
amount is about what an equivalent weight of dogs would need, which is to
say, a walkie every day.
I assume about anybody over a certain age (unless I talk to them and find
out different) has made a decision about their fat, and if they'd rather
have it, that's a respectable decision. Dieting is no fun, exercise is
only sometimes feasible or helpful, the health risks aren't mine. I
haven't noticed much correlation between brain power and girth, except
that people who spend a lot of time getting buffed and playing v-ball tend
not to be extraordinarily well read and thoughtful.
And, might I add, fat models are unarguable better to sculpt than
skinnies. Look at Giacometti - there's only one of him in all art
history.
- Bathsheba
too thin at 140/5'6", but whose current work-in-progress is in
the shape of a walrus. A six-legged fanged walrus. Heh, heh.
piranha
>>
>>Oh, bullshit. You had plenty to say about fat people.
>
>Then quote it Patricia. Arguing and cussing don't change
>reality. I'm sure my posts are still in your spool. Do some
>chompless quoting or shut up.
>
i am probably not the only one, but hey, i'll enjoy it.)
here we go, complete with annotations:
In article <Co60J...@bldrdoc.gov> ebo...@nist.gov writes:
>"Big is beautiful"?
>Tell me you all are kidding...please!
>
blanket statement that obviously big can't be beautiful (why
else would we be kidding).
>When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
>a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
>together. Maybe it's due to grad. school or a divorce or
>their childhood, but how can anyone say that having
>a run-down body is normal?
>
implication that big people let themselves go. blanket state-
ment that big people are troubled and don't have their shit
together. simplistic attempt at analysis. confusion over what
"normal" means.
>The same out-of-shapers would fix their cars if they
>broke. Why won't they fix their primary, can't-be-traded-in
>vehicle in this world?
>
>Maybe it's because the *real* programming is :
>if you can't buy it at KMart,
>if it isn't disposable,
>if you can't order it by phone or from your car,
>if you can't do it while sitting on your ass...then
>IT ISN'T WORTH THE TROUBLE
>
implication that big people shop at kmart and sit on their ass
all the time.
>Did you ever try to keep your head from rolling off a beer
>belly?
>
implication that big people are beer drinkers with the guts
to show for it.
>Personally I find the texture/feel of relaxed muscles on women far,
>far more comfortable than that squishy, jello-like feel of
>fat. I like firm pillows too...
this is in fact the one and only thing where you're speaking
about your own personal preferences (with which i have no pro-
blem at all) instead of making blanket, cliched condemnations
of people you don't even know, something that upset you to no
end when lynn did it to you (and lynn had some evidence that
you were what he said you were).
mr "can't we all just get along" -- "schmuck" and "idiot" are
very obviously insults. you seem to be sadly uneducated that
they're by far not the only, nor the most insiduous insults
around. the kind of cliched writing you do would be insulting
to many people if they were easily insulted, and it's why you
have been getting flak. and it's not anger, by the way, it's
irritation at another superficial attempt to justify one's per-
sonal preferences. *yawn*. neither original nor witty nor
insightful. we've seen it before. why don't you go and ponti-
ficate over in misc.fitness; i'm sure what you have to say will
be welcomed by others of your ilk. this isn't soc.singles.hard.
bodies; what you look like is irrelevant to good conversations.
from what i've seen neither hollywood looks, nor "shape" fitness
are relevant to getting involved in a good relationship in this
group either, so you're preaching to the wrong crowd.
-piranha
trygve lode
>>>When I meet someone who's "let themselves go" I see both
>>>a troubled person and someone who doesn't have their shit
>>>together. Maybe it's due to grad. school or a divorce or
>>
>
>Because I have a hard time respecting someone who doesn't respect
>hirself?
This, I think, is illustrative of why you're generating so many angry
replies--behind your statement above is a flat statement that anyone
else's concept of self-respect, anyone's feelings about themselves
save those you project on him or her are invalid. A lot of people
don't like being told that their basic beliefs and feelings are invalid
simply because they're not the same as yours.
Trouble is, you're not the only one who plays this game--I've run across
people who, with at least as strong a conviction as yours, conclude (and
sometimes announce) that people are obviously completely lacking any
self-respect if they 1) don't share the speaker's particular religion;
2) don't keep their domiciles tidy and dusted; 3) don't follow whatever
other arbitrary "moral code" the speaker happens to have that day.
Your claim is just as irrational as the ones I mention above and every
bit as irritating; heck, one might even conclude that it demonstrates
such a galling lack of awareness that other people are not you that
you obviously must have no self-respect. :-)
--
Trygve Lode | 3270 Cherryridge Road, Englewood, CO 80110 | (303) 781-6309
Want a copy of the soc.singles FAQ? Send mail to tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Send SASE for your free copy of the Unnatural Enquirer
Orc
<ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>What you seem to be offended by is the notion that the flesh
>is as much a part of one's existence as the mind or soul and,
>like the others, requires care and upkeep by its occupant.
If you bothered to actually read the post, you just might notice
that nobody aside from the thin fetishists are saying any such thing.
Care and upkeep does not equal thin.
____
david parsons \bi/ o...@pell.com
\/
trygve lode
>sand...@us17503.mdc.com (David Sandelands) wrote in soc.singles:
>>Lynn (l...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
>>: image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
>>: thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
>>
>>"Big is beautiful" Lynn, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream
>>society. You may even have a psychological disorder!
>
>*sigh* This attitude is so disheartening. My preference for not
>liking skinney people and preferring plumpness is considered grounds
>for suggesting I have a psychological disorder.
'Fraid it's true, Lynn; you're a sick man. Alas, there's nothing else
to do for you than consign you to years and years of extensive therapy
that, while it might not actually cure your disorder, will be highly
enjoyable for your team of non-conventionally beautiful therapists....
trygve lode
>
>I won't tolerate being called a racist by anyone.
>The details of what I've done to support affirmative action for both
>minorities and women are unimportant. Understand that, by calling
>me a racist, you've insulted me to a point of real anger.
OK, so you only support institutionalized racism (affirmative action)
but that still makes you a racist.
> You've
>made a hasty, stupid jab at someone because you think it's wit.
Hey, if you can do it, so can dreas--unless, of course, you're
prepared to sue him, claiming that this tactic is your intellectual
property....
--
Trygve Lode | 3270 Cherryridge Road, Englewood, CO 80110 | (303) 781-6309
Want a copy of the soc.singles FAQ? Send mail to tl...@nyx.cs.du.edu
Seth Breidbart
>> that I wrote:
>> |> That doesn't change the fact that how a person treats their body - not
>> |> what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
>> Bullshit. It's no more a reflection of their so-called "true self" than
>> is their shoe size.
>You live in a warped shadow of reality Frank.
>Shoe size is *genetic*.
>How one treats their body is not.
How one's body responds to any given treatment varies from person to
person.
I think we all know some people who eat lots of food, don't exercise,
and don't gain weight. We know others who eat a lot less, do
exercise, and are heavier.
>Self respect, like respect of others, is a *choice*.
How does one *choose* to be respected by others? (Or, for that
matter, how does one *choose* how much self-respect to have?)
Seth
Graydon
says:
>In article <94105.2102...@qucdn.queensu.ca>,
>Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> wrote:
>>You might also want to check out the changes in those recommended
>>weight charts - there is a steady progression towards lighter
>>and lighter weights for women, which change is not given a reason.
>I'm not sure this is true - last I heard the insurance tables were going
>up, as people got bigger and fatter and more uninsurable.
Don't know about actuarial tables, but the trend toward lighter
weights is definitely there in medical 'recomended weight' tables,
to the point where the female recommended weights are, for large
parts of the population, unachievable if they have any significant
muscle development.
>On exercise, I hold to the Konrad Lorenz theory: the minimum sensible
>amount is about what an equivalent weight of dogs would need, which is to
>say, a walkie every day.
Being a congenital filthy elitist, my notion of 'fit' is that
someone can drop a quarter-of-your-body-weight pack on you, and
you can go for a ten km hike that takes less than two hours, and
this will not have an apreciable effect on one's activity for the
rest of the day.
I'm not fit, but I still like that definition. I like that minimum
sensible amount theory, too.
>too thin at 140/5'6", but whose current work-in-progress is in
>the shape of a walrus. A six-legged fanged walrus. Heh, heh.
Might one be so bold as to inquire what fit of whimsy caused one
to conjecture a polar bear predator?
Graydon
piranha
other people's weight, writes:
>
>According to the American Heart Association, being more
>than about 15% overweight can defintely be equated with unhealthy. Also a
>women who is of average height, say 5'4"-5'5", at 140 lbs is somewhat
>overweight. Certainly not 25 lbs overweight, but a few.
>
without taking other factors into account has immediately made
zirself ineligible as an "expert".
>Offensive or not, one has to question why an otherwise healthy (I assume no
>medical problems) woman weighs 300 lbs. Sure some people naturally store more
>fat than others, so perhaps for this woman 140 or even 150 would be a
>normal weight, but not 300. One would think some minor psychological problems
>are at work here. Maybe you friend suffers from extreme boredom or doesn't
>like sex, or in this one area of her life lacks disipline.
like _you_ don't have any minor psychological problems? and just
how do we determine that? (well, by your posts, of course, but
if we were just to look at you?) and why do you assume no medi-
cal problem? quite a few fat people have those. and sex keeps
you slim, yes? fat people, of course, don't have sex either...
shit, this post is so chockful with cliched stereotypes that i
can virtually hear the hoofbeats of a large group of plonks com-
ing towards young dave.
my roomie's fat grandpa is still alive at age 95. my roomie's
thin grandparents are all dead. every year the medical communi-
ties and its hangers-on tell us that X is bad and Y is good for
us. last year broccoli was great, this year it's bad for you.
bullshit, if you ask me. what's really the truth is that we do
not know a whole lot about how it all works. we have bits and
pieces of the puzzle, but we are far from having a whole picture.
some people think for themselves, and others follow the herd --
the herd has led a lot of people into yo-yo dieting and eating
disorders; not something i consider healthy. even many who ma-
nage to take the weight off seem to worry excessively about keep-
ing it off IMO. when every third word out of somebody's mouth
refers to food, they have an obsession. healthy? not in my book,
whether they can't stop eating or whether they can't stop worry-
ing about putting on weight. what's unhealthier, fat or stress?
this is a society obsessed with weight issues. as an outsider i
must admit i am glad i didn't grow up here (and i don't plan to
get old here either); it's hell on the psyche.
i don't recall whether it was dave or eric who expounded the socal
beach culture as oh so wonderful, but that one had me rolling on
the floor with laughter. never have i seen a more vacuous bunch
of people than all those tanned, oiled hardbody freaks who're just
asking to get skin cancer, and who couldn't, like, carry on, like,
a conversation about, like *anything* outside of fitness and sun-
tan lotion. not all of them, but a year out there among the step-
ford beach bunnies just made me want to run to a beach with real
people. do look up what the skin cancer rates are in socal, by
the way. you'll be surprised just how "healthy" that lifestyle is.
that said, i don't see anything at all wrong with people who want
to be in good physical condition. it's when that comes along with
proselytizing zeal, insulting behavior towards those who are in
less shape and don't care, and cliched stereotypes about others
who don't look as "good", that's when it rubs me the wrong way.
>-- The above
>statements reflect the oppinions of the cyber personality Dave Sandelands.
>This cyber personaltity exists solely to provoke debate. Statements made by
>this artificial ego DO NOT REFLECT the beliefs of any living individuals who
>may have the misfortune to also use this name.
>
you know what? i don't believe you. one can always provoke
debate with educated statements, and that's so much more satis-
fying to everyone involved. you don't sound like you have a
choice in the matter; maybe you ought to get educated first
before doing any more provoking.
>Dave Sandelands is a certified graduate of Harry Flashman's School For Boys.
>Dave has thoroughly mastered the Flashman method for societal advancement.
>Dave demonstrated outstanding ability in the Flashman techniques
>for dealing with women.
[appropriate feedback self-censored]
-piranha
Mary
>>>: Lynn (one person's opinion -- 'course I don't find the perfect-body
>>>: image sexually attractive. And most models look dangerously
>>>: thin to me. Big is beautiful.)
>>> David Sandelands (sand...@us17503.mdc.com) wrote:
>>> "Big is beautiful" Lynn, you are seriously out of touch with mainstream
>>> society. You may even have a psychological disorder!
>> Lynn replied:
>> *sigh* This attitude is so disheartening. My preference for not
>> liking skinney people and preferring plumpness is considered grounds
>> for suggesting I have a psychological disorder.
> Trygve Lode (tl...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
> 'Fraid it's true, Lynn; you're a sick man. Alas, there's nothing else
> to do for you than consign you to years and years of extensive therapy
> that, while it might not actually cure your disorder, will be highly
> enjoyable for your team of non-conventionally beautiful therapists....
"So," Mary says as she leans back in her chair. "Tell me about your
childhood, Lynn."
Mary (and her famous kitties)
quir...@ix.wcc.govt.nz
> Why, our rosy-fingered Lynn has scarcely departed his blushing teens.
I hope they were all above the age of consent, Lynn...
- Tony Q.
---
Tony Quirke, Wellington, New Zealand (email for phone no)
"Khumbaba then felt our strength in the magic cedars,
And we battled Anu's bull, pride of Heaven's breeders;
Thrice we struck, and once it fell, drawing wolves for feeders,
While we strode where drinking men called for expert leaders."
James Anthony Mayhar
<ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>
>Frank claims:
>> and making a blanket statement
>> based on little if any real data, as you did, is a foolish thing to do.
>
>Give me that blanket statement Frank. Come on, you can do better
>than referring to a hazy memory!
>
>I currently consult nine people on nutrition and strength training.
>Before the steroid advocates took over misc.fitness I was a high-volume
>poster with a reputation for providing references from peer-reviewed
>journals for all of my claims and recommendations. I know more about
>nutrition and fitness than most.
Mind if I interject a couple of points here? No? Good. First, little
consensus exists about what constitutes adequate nutrition and exercise, so
what this amounts to is that you have chosen a philosophy that suits your
bias. Second, quoting from peer reviewed journals does not make you an
expert. I have seen some of the most incredible garbage in such journals.
While it is true that they serve as a medium for exchange of new ideas
within a discipline, this does not mean that any particular philosophy
currently pursued is the 'truth'. On numerous occasions, I have chosen
a random, arbitrary position with respect to some topic in my discipline and
supported my argument with journal citations. While this does not imply
that all is garbage, it inspires me to question anyone who claims to
know 'truth' about anything, when supporting hir points with vague ref-
erences to 'scholarly' research.
>Would you like me to explain why people, like the Pima Indians, can
>have large fat deposits while eating a marginal diet. I can. Just ask.
>If you want a beginner's book that isn't to difficult to understand
>try Covert Bailey's "Fit or Fat" ; it's a good starting point for
>understanding how to live longer and healthier.
>
>> My heart fairly bleeds for you, oh maligned one. (Note: This is sarcasm.
>> I know you don't get that there at NIST.)
>
>Sarcasm is the weapon of fools and no, we don't have many of those here.
>Feel free to send a resume nonetheless. I'll put in a good word for you.
My sympathies, Eric, for you know not what you do. Hope you're wearing
flame retardant underwear, for Frank, when angered, is a most formidable
intellectual foe. On second thought, go ahead and dig yourself in as deep
as you wish, for you truly have irritated me also.
And BTW, sarcasm is a tool used by more supple minds to express contempt
or to drive home a particular point. It does appear, too, that you have
at least one fool there.
>> Not everyone
>> is attracted to the conventional idea of beauty,
>Neither am I, and if you could keep your posts straight you'd know
>that I'm currently HOH for a non-"conventional" beauty. She's nothing
>like the Hollywood's image, but she dazzles me like no other.
>You'd also remember my conveyance of the fact that of the several
>"conventional" beauties that I've dated this past year, all have
>lost their attractiveness (to me) after getting to know them better.
>Do I claim that physical attraction is unimportant? Hell no.
>Do I claim that the "conventional" definition of physical attraction
>is mine? Obviously not.
>That doesn't change the fact that how a person treats their body - not
>what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
So, would you say that when I was absolutely dirt poor and couldn't afford
to eat well, that this situation was a reflection of my "true self"? How
about the fact that during this time, I worked at very physically
demanding jobs for very long hours, resulting in early onset arthritis?
Of course my "true self" was the grunt laborer who wasn't smart enough
to do anything else? Chuckle. Such generalizations show how stupid
you really are.
>> but that does _not_ make
>> them "sick," as you (it _was_ you, right?) accused Lynn.
>
>No, it was not I. That would be the Redondo Beach person.
>Bad memory Frank.
>You don't even know what I posted do you Frank? Pathetic.
>Go back and read the post or tell me to email you a copy of
>it if you can't figure out how to retrieve old posts.
Chuckle. You really aren't very smart, are you? (That's a rhetorical
question, in case you hadn't noticed)
>I've read it several times now trying to see how people were
>offended by a post that said :
>"it's not about shape or weight, but health"
>and
>"I know plenty of active, healthy people who could never model swimwear"
>
>and all I can guess is that my response to Sheba's bashing on the
>discomfort of washboard abs offended people with beer guts.
>
>And yes, if you are not trying to better yourself I *do* condemn that.
If you mean this in intellectual or spiritual ways, rather than merely
physically, then this is okay. It reads, though, as though you mean
strictly physical betterment. How absurd to condemn those who are not
able to exercise anything but their intellects. I have met many at
school who were *absolutely* incapable of improving their physical
condition. (If you are wise, you won't argue this point.)
>Eric S. Boltz
James Mayhar
jam...@tamsun.tamu.edu
Lynn
>sh...@panix.com (Bathsheba Grossman) writes:
>
>> Why, our rosy-fingered Lynn has scarcely departed his blushing teens.
>
> I hope they were all above the age of consent, Lynn...
>
I took all the funny looking birth certificats and driver's licenses
at face value. Why?
Lynn (Candy? Why, yes. I have some candy.)
Lynn
>>> Lynn replied:
>>> *sigh* This attitude is so disheartening. My preference for not
>>> liking skinney people and preferring plumpness is considered grounds
>>> for suggesting I have a psychological disorder.
>
>> Trygve Lode (tl...@nyx10.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>> 'Fraid it's true, Lynn; you're a sick man. Alas, there's nothing else
>> to do for you than consign you to years and years of extensive therapy
>> that, while it might not actually cure your disorder, will be highly
>> enjoyable for your team of non-conventionally beautiful therapists....
>
>"So," Mary says as she leans back in her chair. "Tell me about your
>childhood, Lynn."
>
I might really enjoy this disorder. I can think of several people who
could help with the therapy. Several.
Ooooooooo, doctor. I don't feel very good.
Lynn (It all started when I was just an infant at my wet nurse's
breast...)
James Anthony Mayhar
<ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>'dreas writes:
>> Magazines are just another way of spreading the Hollywood myths.
>> The medical, fitness, and nutritional current trends are not always
>> correct in the advice they popularize...
>> It depends on who buys the advertizing space.
>I said "journals".
>Journals don't have advertisements...I'm not talking about
>"men's fitness" or something else you'd buy as a newsstand.
>Journal of Applied Physiology
>Tufts U. Diet and Nutrition Journal
>Sports Medicine
>Am. Journal of Clinical Nutrition
>etc.
>The reading is a bit dry but informative.
Yes, the reading can be informative, but, as a reader of professional
journals, I would suggest that it is difficult, if not impossible, for
the layman to judge the merits of the studies and articles presented
therein. I have read enough to say with assurance that not all that
is presented in professional, peer reviewed journals can be taken as
the gospel of science (chuckle). Some of it results from poorly
designed studies, some suffer from faults in the statistical method-
ology, while others suffer from badly formed hypotheses. The point
is that if one is not already knowledgeable in the discipline, then
one cannot rationally judge what is good and bad, although in the case
of poor statistical methods, I'm sure many s.s.ers are quite capable
of detecting problems. Without reading the entire current literature,
one cannot judge whether an article is in the mainstream, or is out
of sync with accepted theory. I, for one, am not willing to accept
your analysis without corroboration from an unbiased source.
Have a nice day.
James Mayhar
jam...@tamsun.tamu.edu
Character flaw: I love to antagonize people. Oh, well . . .;-)
>Eric S. Boltz
William Kaufman
] You wrote:
] > that I wrote:
] > |> what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
] > Bullshit. It's no more a reflection of their so-called "true self" than
] > is their shoe size.
]
] You live in a warped shadow of reality Frank.
] Shoe size is *genetic*.
] How one treats their body is not.
Just came across this today:
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen studied body weights
in 840 adult adoptees who were thin, medium weight, overweight
and obese. When compared to adopted and biological parents and
siblings, body weight consistently reflected the biological
family. The genetic influence is in already in full swing by
age seven, according to researchers, while the rearing
environment only has a weak influence on weight during
childhood.
(Charlie's still right: can't use Danish folk as a baseline for
humanity. But this is strongly suggestive,...)
] Your version of logic, that people are not responsible for their
] behavior, is how people justify the most horrific deeds. I'll
] never agree with that idea Frank. Never.
]
] Unfortunately, yours is the dominant philosophy in our
] society today. No fault everything. Doesn't seem to be working
] too well.
Well, taking Frank out of the picture, I agree with the above: not
enough responsibility being assumed in our society. I *don't* agree
with your characterization of fat as "horrific", though; nor that I have
a responsibility to adjust my body to others' desires.
] And a few old timers can't handle ideas that aren't their own.
*snrk* excuse me,...
] What you seem to be offended by is the notion that the flesh
] is as much a part of one's existence as the mind or soul and,
] like the others, requires care and upkeep by its occupant.
This is something that's sort of bugged me here: you've referred to
the body as a "cage", and yourself as an occupant of that cage. Myself,
if I ever felt my body were a cage, I'd look to escape at the first
chance.
But, I don't feel that way: I consider my body as much Me as my
knowledge, my humor or my bad fashion sense. And I pretty much like Me,
even if I ain't getting a modeling contract any time soon.
] But, to make you happy, I'll stick around and post enough so that
] someday I too can be like you...well, minus the anger.
]
] Peace Frank.
] I don't know you well enough to be any meaner I'm afraid.
Do stick around: meanness and anger come for free here. ;-)
-- Bill K.
Bill Kaufman | "ENJOY LIFE!
wkau...@us.oracle.com | -- Eat out more often."
| -- S. E. Rykoff
Pat Steward
Scott Boltz) writes:
>In article <Co7GI...@crash.cts.com> l...@crash.cts.com (Lynn) writes:
>>
>>You, Sir, are an ass.
>
>And you make conclusions about people you don't know.
Pot. Kettle. Total freakin' darkness.
--
Patricia Martin Steward pat...@oz.plymouth.edu
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is;
I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express senti-
ments that differentiate me from a doormat. Rebecca West, 1913
Charles R Martin -- Personal Account
Just came across this today:
Researchers at the University of Copenhagen studied body weights
in 840 adult adoptees who were thin, medium weight, overweight
and obese. When compared to adopted and biological parents and
siblings, body weight consistently reflected the biological
family. The genetic influence is in already in full swing by
age seven, according to researchers, while the rearing
environment only has a weak influence on weight during
childhood.
(Charlie's still right: can't use Danish folk as a baseline for
humanity. But this is strongly suggestive,...)
I hate to disagree with someone who's saying I'm right, but that was
actually Eric's counter to the Pima indian stuff. However, I think
*you're* right in seeing this as applying appropriately, since in
general European bloodlines are quite mixed up compared to a
geographically and culturally isolated group like the Pima. Thus what
goes for Danes probably goes *reasonably* well for everyone.
--
Charles R. Martin/(Charlie)/3611 University Dr 13M/Durham, NC 27707/Software
Consulting and Training/(919) 419-1754 day or night/ aka mar...@cs.unc.edu,
76367...@compuserve.com/"Anyone who tries to `enlighten' you is probably
selling something." -- Jen Howard.
eric_s._boltz
> that I wrote:
> >And yes, if you are not trying to better yourself I *do* condemn that.
>
> If you mean this in intellectual or spiritual ways, rather than merely
> physically, then this is okay. It reads, though, as though you mean
> strictly physical betterment.
You might recall the words body, mind and soul in three (yep, 3) posts.
Then again, you might just live to flame...nothing wrong with that. :)
In addition, I posted both an apology and clarification.
If you didn't read it, ignored it, or it didn't make it to
your site then...oh well.
eric_s._boltz
> OK, so you only support institutionalized racism (affirmative action)
> but that still makes you a racist.
>
Not as I see it. There's a very famous experiment (forgot the name) in
which two essays were given to a large number of people for grading.
The name on half of the essays was some WASP/male name like "John Smith",
and on the other half it was a fairly common, female Chicano name like
"Marcia Gonzales". When the essays were graded Marcia Gonzales had a very
poor grade while John Smith got great reviews.
The trouble is that half of John Smith's papers were essay A while
the other half were essay B and likewise for Marcia Gonzales. People
grade lower based upon the name on the top of the paper whether they
knew it or not.
Until the diversity of hirers, college entrance acceptors, judges and
politicians in this country reflects that of the general population there
is no way (IMHO) that minorities and women will get a fair shake.
Affirmative action helps level the playing field and I support that.
To say it's institutional racism is a legit claim, but I certainly
don't agree with it. I see it as essential to prevent what this
country's founders termed the "tyranny of the majority", or, more
specifically (in my words) the tyranny of white male society.
I should also defined what I consider "affirmative action". I don't
believe in "quotas", but if two :equally qualified: persons apply for
the same position and one is a white male while the other belongs
to a poorly represented ethnicity or gender then I support giving
the position to the latter.
If you think that makes me a racist then you're entitled to that
opinion. I think it makes me an idealist whose hope is that someday
such "action" will not be necessary but knows that the power of
America's white male society stands in the way of that ideal.
-E
> Hey, if you can do it, so can dreas--unless, of course, you're
> prepared to sue him, claiming that this tactic is your intellectual
> property....
heh, heh...If I'd only known you could patent/copyright a tactic...
David Sandelands
: >In article sand...@us17503.mdc.com (David Sandelands) writes:
: >According to the American Heart Association, being more
: >than about 15% overweight can defintely be equated with unhealthy. Also a women
: >who is of average height, say 5'4"-5'5", at 140 lbs is somewhat overweight.
: >Certainly not 25 lbs overweight, but a few.
: Not necessarily. Many female body builders are around 5'5" and 140 lbs, but
: their percentage of body fat is extremely low. If someone, even if she is not
: a body builder, falls into that category, she simply weighs more than what she
: is told she is "supposed" to weigh. It does not mean she is overweight. In
: fact, if you look on the weight charts, a woman of that hight and of medium
: bone size is well within the medically recommended weight range. I am 5'4"
: and when I weight 140 lbs, I don't look overweight, I wear a size 10, and it
: would be unhealthy for me to be any thinner because that is just the way my
: body is.
Mary,
Indeed many female body builders weigh 140 lbs. However as you pointed out
they have very little body fat are certainly not overweight. The AHA guidelines
refer to being overfat. Perhaps my use of the more conventional term overweight
is causing some confusion. No doubt, at 140 lbs of muscle and a size 10 no less,you look great! As you mentioned, weight charts show a wide range of acceptable
weight for a given height. What is important is not actual weight, but
percentage of lean muscle mass ( you I am sure know this). I would venture to
say, there are far more women who are 5'5" 140 lbs who are 15 lbs overfat,
than there are women such as yourself.
: [Re: people who are overweight having psychological problems)
: >Offensive or not, one has to question why an otherwise healthy (I assume no
: >medical problems) woman weighs 300 lbs. Sure some people naturally store more
: >fat than others, so perhaps for this woman 140 or even 150 would be a
: >normal weight, but not 300. One would think some minor psychological problems
: >are at work here. Maybe you friend suffers from extreme boredom or doesn't like
: >sex, or in this one area of her life lacks disipline.
: This is absolute horse crap. The implication that being overweight means the
: person has psychological problems is a result of media propoganda. You've
: fallen for it, and that is too bad. There are a number of factors which
: affect a person's weight. The mechanisms are so complicated that the medical
: profession is at a loss. Diet and exercise don't work. Therapy doesn't work.
: And, the idea that it is a lack of discipline is propogated by the people who
: have no idea what it is like to try to lose weight.
: Mary
Here I must respectfully disagree. There is a strong correlation between severe
overeating and psychological problems. Also as a general rule diet and exercise
do work. Diet removes subcutaneous fat and exercise changes the bodys shape.
I strongly disagree with your statement that therapy doesn't work. For the
extremely obese, nothing will work until the basic psychological problems which
lead to overeating are solved.
Dave
The above statements reflect the oppinions the cyber personality
Dave Sandelands. This artificial ego exists solely to provoke debate.
Oppinions expressed by this artificial cyber personality DO NOT REFLECT
the beliefs of any liviving man who may also use this name.
james.j.dutton
>Hey, chill out Syd!
>
>I am not questioning your friends selfworth, selfesteem, moral values,
>fitness as a mother or mental aqility.
>
>I am questioning behaviour that leads to a woman weighing 300 lbs!
>
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs. As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
No, actually I just like biting my toenails.
Honestly never knew they were that fatty.
================================================================================
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more.
"The moments of freedom, they can't be given to you. You have to take
them." -- Robert Frost
================================================================================
Graydon
Sandelands) says:
>Hey, chill out Syd!
>
>I am not questioning your friends selfworth, selfesteem, moral values,
>fitness as a mother or mental aqility.
>
>I am questioning behaviour that leads to a woman weighing 300 lbs!
>
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs. As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
Your cluelessness is showing.
Some people who weight 300 lbs weigh 300 lbs because their genes, or
their metabolism, or _something_, thinks that's what they ought to
weigh. What percentage of such people this covers is unknown, because
the mechanism or mechanisms is just plain unknown.
Mammalian metabolism is the sort of subject that makes clever,
focused people's head explode - it's huge, it's complex, it's
hard, and it at the pre-Quabbalah alchemy stage.
If you were to discuss the question of wether or not people
appear to live in their body (as opposed to n-space or sitting
behind their eyes driving), you would have a point - not
living in one's body does count as a psych disorder symptom.
However, not living in one's body doesn't correlate worth toad
squat to one's weight, percetage body fat, or muscle fitness;
I know hardbodies who have a pathological 'vehicle' attitude
about their body, chubby women who are so much in their body
that they have to go out with Guido and Nunzio to beat men off
with sticks, and just about everything in between.
For a real start on the psychology of eating disorders, may I
recommend Marion Woodman's 'The Owl was a Baker's Daughter';
it would be well to inform your ignorance before publicly
displaying it again.
I would also recomend you keep reading that series of books -
Woodman started looking at eating disorders and discovered
some very interesting patterns that apply to people's general
view of themselves, what's tangled and mangled about that,
and how one might consider fixing it. The books are written
chiefly to address female concerns, but I consider them
valuable for a male reader as well.
You should also look at the replacement of sin with image as
a general trend in Western thought. Cultural beliefs in polar
or absolute evils and goods are quite rare these days (which is
why no-one can manage convincing classic epic, but I digress),
but served a social function. The social mechanisms, most of them
guilt based, that relied on a notion of sin have adapted, and
adopted a notion of image to define the elect. It's horrible,
coercive, and stupid, and you seem to have fallen for it, hook,
line, and sinker.
Graydon
Frank Mayhar
In article <CoB2q...@bldrdoc.gov>,
<ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>You live in a warped shadow of reality Frank.
No more warped than your own, my idiot friend.
>Shoe size is *genetic*.
>How one treats their body is not.
>Self respect, like respect of others, is a *choice*.
You claimed:
|> That doesn't change the fact that how a person treats their body - not
|> what it looks like - is a reflection of their "true self".
First, I question (strongly) the concept of a "true self." Second, I
question (also strongly) your statement that treating ones' body "well"
(by your definition) is a requirement for self respect. This is so much
bullshit. My self-image was fine even before I started blading regularly,
and it will continue to be so after I stop. Third, I challenge your
assertion that this statement is a "fact." It's no more a "fact" than is
the statement that all blondes are dumb. You have expressed an opinion as
if it is a statement of absolute truth, and in _this_ group, that's looking
for serious trouble.
Self respect is a choice, yes, but it has entirely nothing to do with whether
one is "in shape" or not.
>Your version of logic, that people are not responsible for their
>behavior, is how people justify the most horrific deeds. I'll
>never agree with that idea Frank. Never.
>Unfortunately, yours is the dominant philosophy in our
>society today. No fault everything. Doesn't seem to be working
>too well.
Strawman fallacy. Try attacking something I actually said, okay, instead
of the words you're trying to put in my mouth? Try being responsible for
_your_ behavior, for a change.
>And a few old timers can't handle ideas that aren't their own.
>They discover their bodies too late in life to do anything
>about their own health and get angry at those who advocate
>a healthy lifestyle from day one.
Jumping to a conclusion from insufficient evidence. You're a fool, Eric.
You've drawn conclusions about my state of health solely from the fact that
I strongly disagree with your opinion. You have _no_ real knowledge of my
state of health. If you were to inquire, you might find several people who
regularly read soc.singles who might attest to the fact that, while I'm no
bodybuilder (nor do I desire to be), I get by. I still know that my sense
of self-worth is pretty much unrelated to my level of physical fitness.
>What you seem to be offended by is the notion that the flesh
>is as much a part of one's existence as the mind or soul and,
>like the others, requires care and upkeep by its occupant.
Jumping to a conclusion. Also, illiteracy. Read what I wrote.
>Sure Frank, sure. Just please don't tell ,ok? I've had everyone
>fooled for so long it might crush them. At least let me finish
>my dissertation...k?
Condescension. Just because you claim to be working on a dissertation is
no reason to believe you as opposed to, say, Sydney. Sydney, at least, has
the benefit of a history of fairly accurate and well-thought-out statements.
_Your_ statements, on the other hand, are not thought out at all, apparently.
>Bullshit. While I can condescend with the best, when I apologize
>I mean it. If you don't believe that, so what? I know I meant it
>and I certainly hope that Charles knows I meant it. Your need
>to pass judgement on words which weren't directed at you is
>terribly juvenile. "Liar, liar, pants on fire..." whatever.
Post it in a public place, you've put it there for all to read and comment
upon. You should have emailed Charlie and posted a general apology to the
rest of us. And, judging by the tone of every other piece of text you've
posted, you think you know better about every one of us than we know about
ourselves. If that's not condescending, the word has no meaning.
>Quite simple Frank. You notified me, as if you gave a shit, that I had
>used a nickname which Charles finds insulting. I thanked you for
>pointing this out and promptly (check the post time compared with your email
>time) posted an apology; I'm pretty sure it was within one minute of
>my receipt of your mail. In spite of my swift attempt to rectify my
>mistake, YOU, not Charles, accused me of using the nickname as an
>insult when in fact you KNEW that I had not. That's two-faced behavior.
Ah, yes. You jumped to the conclusion that I was "on your side," when I
offered you a Free Clue(tm) and made light of the situation. Sorry, Eric,
I'm _not_ "on your side," nor was I _ever_ "on your side," and your apology
was still condescending.
>Are you still a communist Frank?
Yep. Are you still an idiot? Apparently so.
>Please don't set me up like that again...it might be entertaining
>but it's childish and mean.
You set yourself up. You're acting like an idiot, and you're being treated
like one. _And_ you're whining about it.
>Frank, you've been putting a tad too much sugar on your breakfast cereal
>again. Now take a deep breath and count to ten.
>Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
Oh, no, I'm not. You'll eventually get tired of not being able to make this
group your private sandbox, and you'll wander off to other places. In the
interim, you'll be in my killfile so I won't have to listen to your babble.
>Newbie? Nah Frank, I've posted here quite a few times over the last
>four years.
Not a newbie? Then why do you make newbie mistakes, like following up
some random article (as indicated in the References: header), but quoting
me or 'dreas, or some other person, from an entirely different article?
Why do you have no email address in your From: field? Why to you have
an unreplyable address in the Reply-To: field? Why do you make stupid
mistakes in logic, as I indicated above?
--
Frank Mayhar fma...@acsc.com
Advanced Computing Systems Company
3000 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite 400, LA, CA 90034 (310) 815-4858
Oh, yeah, that's right. You're an idiot.
oscar_meyer_"franks"
> (Picked this up from followups; he's in my killfile.)
*sob*
Musta been a real bitch getting rid of all those > characters.
Hey, who quoted my entire post anyway?
Frank, tell the truth now, you read the original...didn't you?
*snicker*
> Self respect is a choice, yes, but it has entirely nothing to do with whether
> one is "in shape" or not.
Better re-read my post (right up there ^ Frank). I said:
"how a person treats their body". I don't see the words
"in shape" there Frank. Don't use quotes if you're not quoting.
> Strawman fallacy. Try attacking something I actually said
Turnabout is fair play?
> Read what I wrote.
Tee hee. At least you have a sense of humor!
> Sydney, at least, has
> the benefit of a history of fairly accurate and well-thought-out statements.
Couldn't agree with you more. Sydney also doesn't resort to anger and
name calling. I've read Sydney's posts mister and your no Sydney.
> Post it in a public place, you've put it there for all to read and comment
> upon. You should have emailed Charlie and posted a general apology to the
> rest of us.
Public apologies carry more weight because of the added element of
humility. If you were more tolerant of other people's posts (read:
didn't have such a huge kill file) you'd also know that Charlie
accepted my apology publicly. And, yes I also mailed him an
apology as well. Thanks for the input though.
> Ah, yes. You jumped to the conclusion that I was "on your side,"
What's with the quotation marks? I never wrote those words.
Seems you never got the hang of what quotation marks are for Frank.
> >Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
>
> Oh, no, I'm not.
Are too!
> am not!
are too!
Cute little game Frank, but I'm getting bored of you.
> Not a newbie? Then why do you make newbie mistakes, like following up
> some random article (as indicated in the References: header), but quoting
> me or 'dreas, or some other person, from an entirely different article?
To save bandwidth and (my) time...newbie.
> Why do you have no email address in your From: field?
Because every newsreader I've ever seen uses the Reply-To field for
email addresses. That's why they call it "Reply".
The newer newsreaders also include this field with the
subject field and I think it looks much less cryptic than an email
address.
Plus it looks a lot better when followups say "Eric S. Boltz wrote:"
Try it, you'll like it.
> Why to you have an unreplyable address in the Reply-To: field?
It's replyable. Depending on which address I use it may not,
however, be fingerable. "ebo...@nist.gov" uses a DOC
mail router whereas "ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov" is my "real"
address (the fingerable one) but takes longer to type and looks
silly on a business card. I also tend to post from three different
machines and things tend to vary a bit...
Trust me Frank, I'm no newbie. I've been a Unix sysadmin (even though
I hate it and don't get paid for that part of my job) for over five years.
To prove it I'll get this puppy past your kill file okay?
And since you're so concerned with my address I'll toss in my full
sig and you can finger me some more.
Ooooo!
-E
--
Eric S. Boltz, M.S.E. *ebo...@nist.gov*
Materials Research Engineer ebo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
National Institute of Standards and Technology NeXTMail Accepted
(Ph.D. Candidate, Johns Hopkins University)
My views, opinions and statements in no way reflect those of the U.S. Gov't,
the U.S. Department of Commerce or NIST.
,__o
_-\_<, DoD #1150
(*)/'(*) Mountain bikes save lives (from boredom).
Mary
>: Not necessarily. Many female body builders are around 5'5" and 140 lbs, but
>: their percentage of body fat is extremely low. If someone, even if she is not
>: a body builder, falls into that category, she simply weighs more than what she
>: is told she is "supposed" to weigh. It does not mean she is overweight. In
>: fact, if you look on the weight charts, a woman of that hight and of medium
>: bone size is well within the medically recommended weight range. I am 5'4"
>: and when I weight 140 lbs, I don't look overweight, I wear a size 10, and it
>: would be unhealthy for me to be any thinner because that is just the way my
>: body is.
>David Sandelands replies:
>Indeed many female body builders weigh 140 lbs. However as you pointed out
>they have very little body fat are certainly not overweight. The AHA guidelines
>refer to being overfat. Perhaps my use of the more conventional term overweight
>is causing some confusion. No doubt, at 140 lbs of muscle and a size 10 no
>less,you look great! As you mentioned, weight charts show a wide range of
>acceptable weight for a given height. What is important is not actual
>weight, but percentage of lean muscle mass ( you I am sure know this). I
>would venture to say, there are far more women who are 5'5" 140 lbs who are
>15 lbs overfat, than there are women such as yourself.
David, in your post, you did not mention anything about percentage body fat.
You equated hight and weight. For women, the percentage of body fat is higher
than for men. Female body builders, who you seem to think are very healthy
and fit, actually experience numerous health problems because of their low
percentage of body fat.
>Here I must respectfully disagree. There is a strong correlation between
>severe overeating and psychological problems. Also as a general rule diet and
>exercise do work. Diet removes subcutaneous fat ...
Actually, the body tends to eat away water first, muscle next, and then fat.
>and exercise changes the bodys shape. I strongly disagree with your
>statement that therapy doesn't work. For the extremely obese, nothing will
>work until the basic psychological problems which lead to overeating are
>solved.
There is also a correlaton between being human and having psychological
problems. Anorexics are thin - but as a result of a psychological problem.
You simply cannot look at a person, see that the person is heavy and conclude
that that person has a psychological problem. And, if that person does have a
problem, it is most likely because of people like you who tell them that there
is something wrong with them and they are worth less as a person simply
because of the way they look.
If diet and exercise so work, please explain to all of us why there is a 98%
failure rate? Sure, they work in the short run. If you diet and exercise,
you will lose weight, but chances are extremely high that the weight will come
back. And, this does not mean that the dieter is stupid or lacks will power,
or has a psychological problem. We simply do not know enough about metabolism
and the physical mechanisms which cause weight gain to conclude any of that.
Finally, if the problem is physical, all the therapy in the world is not going
to make any difference. If there was an easy answer, if diets, exercise and
therapy worked, there would not be any fat people in this country. Most
people who are overweight have tried every diet, every exercise program, and
every therapy technique. All to no avail.
Mary
Mary
>David Sandelands writes:
>I am not questioning your friends selfworth, selfesteem, moral values,
>fitness as a mother or mental aqility.
>I am questioning behaviour that leads to a woman weighing 300 lbs!
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs. As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
Psychological cause does not equal psychological problem. This is a perfect
example of the social construction of reality. This can only be considered a
psychological problem if people define it as such. This does not mean that a
300 pound person has a psych. problem, rather it means that society has
defined whatever reason the person is 300 pounds as a psych. problem. There
are many examples when this social construction of reality has been
completely, totally, and undoubtedly *wrong*. I happen to believe this is one
of those examples, but... that is just IMHO.
Mary, social psychologist and kitty mom
Julie Wright
James Anthony Mayhar <jam...@tamsun.tamu.edu> wrote:
>So, would you say that when I was absolutely dirt poor and couldn't afford
>to eat well, that this situation was a reflection of my "true self"? How
>about the fact that during this time, I worked at very physically
>demanding jobs for very long hours, resulting in early onset arthritis?
>Of course my "true self" was the grunt laborer who wasn't smart enough
>to do anything else? Chuckle.
Brudders?
---Julie
Orc
Marry me?
____
david parsons \bi/ See you at the family reunion, Frank!
\/
Insect God
the soi-disant David Sandelands <sand...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
<three screens of quote deleted>
>Hey, chill out Syd!
>
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs. As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
Hey, wank boy II. Larry's dog will have a bigger erection for you if you
edit before posting this shmootz.
And don't call her 'Syd'.
>The above statements reflect the oppinions the cyber personality
>Dave Sandelands. This artificial ego exists solely to provoke debate.
>Oppinions expressed by this artificial cyber personality DO NOT REFLECT
>the beliefs of any liviving man who may also use this name.
Misspelling 3.
Excess caps 12.
Inanity 8.
Obsolescence 10.
Shirking responsibility for own utterances 6.
Pinheaded grammatical error 1.
It would be courteous to place this siggy excrescence at the beginning of
your posts, that the reader might rest assured of your syphilitic paresis
without wading the travaillous waters of your actual post.
-Bathsheba
Dr. Brat
Quoted from a secondary article. The original hasn't reached my site:
> In article <CoB2q...@bldrdoc.gov>,
> <ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>>Frank, you've been putting a tad too much sugar on your breakfast cereal
>>again. Now take a deep breath and count to ten.
>>Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
>
I would just like to quietly point out that if Mr. Boltz were as much of
an expert as he wants us all to think he is, he would know that the most
recent research shows no apparent correlation between levels of sugar
consumed and erratic behavior. (Source: Tufts Diet and Nutrition Letter,
April 1994)
What I want to know is why Mr. Boltz appears to have taken a conciliatory
attitude towards me and Sydney, yet continues to go after Frank. Would
his attitude perhaps change if he knew that neither of us is available?
*snicker*
Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Car a l'etre que nous avons le plus aime nous ne sommes pas si fideles qu'a
nous-memes, et nous l'oublierons tot ou tard pour pouvoir, puisque ca fait
partie de nous-memes, recommencer a aimer.
-Proust
Francois Souchay
>>In article <Co60J...@bldrdoc.gov>, Hmmm...got a good alias? writes:
>>> Sheba wrote:
>>>> did you ever try to get your head comfortable on a
>>>> set of washboard-style abdominals?
>>>
>>> Personally I find the texture/feel of relaxed muscles on women far,
>>> far more comfortable than that squishy, jello-like feel of
>>> fat. I like firm pillows too...
>
>Men, pupster, are built different than women. Let me encourage you to keep
>at it with the pillows, though.
"Grossman takes a few warm-up swings, then steps to the plate. She leans
into the stance and stares intently at Boltz, who's really been getting
shellacked here today. He winds up... it's the pitch...
AND SHE HITS IT OUT OF THE PARK, BOUNCING THE BALL OFF HIS CUP WITH A DING
THAT COULD BE HEARD INTO THE STANDS!"
Francois.
piranha
>
sydney said:
>>derision. I don't like cigarette smoke, and I'm allergic to it -- so
>>I try not to breathe it, and I probably wouldn't be interested in dating
>>a smoker. But I don't make a moral or psychological issue out why some
>>people continue to smoke despite the proven health risks.
>
>Wink wink. We're stupit have low self esteem and really want to keel ourselves.
>Edification.
>
you know, this is starting to seem like a trend -- mention smoke
somewhere, and jeem comes out of the woodwork to comment. seems
we have our own little kibo here (and no, i won't say it 666
times even if that got me a pair of socks).
go, jeem, go.
-piranha
james.j.dutton
>
>Quoted from a secondary article. The original hasn't reached my site:
>
>> In article <CoB2q...@bldrdoc.gov>,
>> <ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>>>Frank, you've been putting a tad too much sugar on your breakfast cereal
>>>again. Now take a deep breath and count to ten.
>>>Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
>>
>
>I would just like to quietly point out that if Mr. Boltz were as much of
>an expert as he wants us all to think he is, he would know that the most
>recent research shows no apparent correlation between levels of sugar
>consumed and erratic behavior. (Source: Tufts Diet and Nutrition Letter,
>April 1994)
point out that article also says:
"None of this is to say we have irrefutable proof that sugar never has
an effect on behavior,..."
>What I want to know is why Mr. Boltz appears to have taken a conciliatory
>attitude towards me and Sydney, yet continues to go after Frank. Would
>his attitude perhaps change if he knew that neither of us is available?
>*snicker*
More champagne?
================================================================================
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more.
"In fact, I've fallen in love with two out
of the three medicated ladies I've dated over the past 15 years"- Tom Hesley
================================================================================
james.j.dutton
>In article <2ougl5$6...@lynx.unm.edu>,
>the soi-disant David Sandelands <sand...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
><three screens of quote deleted>
>
>>Hey, chill out Syd!
>>
>>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>>day until they weigh 300 lbs. As I said, barring medical problems, this
>>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
>
>Hey, wank boy II. Larry's dog will have a bigger erection for you if you
>edit before posting this shmootz.
>
>And don't call her 'Syd'.
>
>>The above statements reflect the oppinions the cyber personality
>>Dave Sandelands. This artificial ego exists solely to provoke debate.
>>Oppinions expressed by this artificial cyber personality DO NOT REFLECT
>>the beliefs of any liviving man who may also use this name.
>
>Misspelling 3.
>Excess caps 12.
>Inanity 8.
>Obsolescence 10.
>Shirking responsibility for own utterances 6.
>Pinheaded grammatical error 1.
>
>It would be courteous to place this siggy excrescence at the beginning of
>your posts, that the reader might rest assured of your syphilitic paresis
>without wading the travaillous waters of your actual post.
>-Bathsheba
================================================================================
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. AMA#669373 DoD#564. There ain't no more.
"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few
virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
================================================================================
oscar_meyer_"franks"
> What I want to know is why Mr. Boltz appears to have taken a conciliatory
> attitude towards me and Sydney, yet continues to go after Frank. Would
> his attitude perhaps change if he knew that neither of us is available?
> *snicker*
Not available?! Why then you're an idiot! :)
No, it's because you and Sydney (and Graydon) have refrained from name calling
and anger. Frank, on the other hand, has misquoted me and resorted to
very hot-headed tactics. It really is that simple.
Actually I'm really just trying to see if I can wear out the i,d,o and t
keys on Frank's keyboard (heh heh).
As to your availability; I'm crushed. Please say it ain't so!
*sob*
:)
-E
Who can't handle more than one obsession at a time anyway...
--
Eric S. Boltz
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
(excessive included text trimmed)
David Sandelands wrote:
>: >Offensive or not, one has to question why an otherwise healthy woman
>: >woman weighs 300 lbs. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One does have to question? Why?
>: >One would think some minor psychological problems
>: >are at work here. Maybe you friend suffers from extreme boredom or doesn't
>: >like sex, or in this one area of her life lacks disipline.
Sydney wrote:
>: Look, chumbucket. Turn most people inside out and shake 'em, and
>: you can uncover a "minor psychological problem" or three or six.
>: Would you care to explain why certain characteristics which may
>: or may not signal the presence of any more psychological problems
>: than you or anyone else actually have are taken as an invite to amateur
>: psychoanalysis hour with a side order of moral judgement ("lacks
>: discipline") seasoned with outburts of public derision? Furthermore,
>: whether or not the cause is psychological, why should it lead people to
>: treat her as worth less than the slender woman standing beside her (who
>: could be an alcoholic who beats her kids or a vicious psychotic bitch
>: from hell[tm] for all anyone knows)?
>Hey, chill out Syd!
My name is Sydney. Please do not truncate or amputate my name. And
I will chill when I've conveyed my point to you, or demonstrated beyond
a reasonable doubt to the people scoring at home that you, David Sandelands,
probably wouldn't recognize or acknowledge a valid point if it jumped
onto your coffee table in a strapless dress and did the can-can for your
viewing pleasure.
>I am not questioning your friends selfworth, selfesteem, moral values,
>fitness as a mother or mental aqility.
Oh? Then why all the stuff about not liking sex and boredom? And
yes, I don't have the original post but you indeed did seem to
be implying a link between weight and lack of selfworth or self
esteem. Perhaps one of the Gentle Readers can supply the appropriate
quotes.
>I am questioning behaviour that leads to a woman weighing 300 lbs!
Yes, so you are. And I am saying, even if that behavior does have a basis
in a "minor psychological problem", why must one question or speculate
about it? Many people in fact have minor psychological problems, most of
which don't show when you're standing next to them.
So what makes weight different that you, David Sandelands, should
"question the behavior" which leads to its gain? When you stand behind
a foxy woman with auburn hair at the grocery checkout and notice she's
in her late thirties and not wearing a wedding ring, do you speculate
that minor psychological problems may lead her to be unable to fall in
love with worthwhile men who treat her like a queen while she goes head
over heels for scumbuckets and aloof, disinterested types time and time
again? I hope not; I would say her psychology is noneofyourbeeswax.
So why is weight different? Why "must one" question the behavior which
leads to 300 lbs of it? Why do you feel it's your business to speculate
about whether a woman who weighs 300 lbs dislikes sex or suffers from
boredom or has other "minor psychological problems"?
Get the point yet?
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs.
I'm not quite sure how to parse this, but it sounds as though you believe
people who weigh 300 lbs pig out every day. Here is a news flash for you.
Some people get to weigh 300 lbs by eating pretty much what anyone eats
(perhaps slightly larger portions) but being suddenly unable to exercise,
or to exercise as vigorously as they once did.
>As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
Even if it is and does, you still haven't explained why "one must question"
the behavior or speculate about its psychological causes. Or do you go
around routinely questioning everyone's behavior and speculating about its
psychological causes? If so, sounds like _you're_ the one with the
minor psychological problem.
Then there's the issue of why weight should lead to people being treated
differently, and as less than they would be if thin (I'm not speaking of
romantically, I'm speaking of daily, routine, treatment. I don't believe
you had a response to that issue?
Sydney
Frank Mayhar
I fell out of my chair when I read this.
--
Frank Mayhar fma...@acsc.com
Advanced Computing Systems Company
3000 S. Robertson Blvd. Suite 400, LA, CA 90034 (310) 815-4858
I mean, I _literally_ fell out of my chair, onto the floor, when I read this.
nvon...@msuvx1.memphis.edu
> sand...@us17503.mdc.com (David Sandelands) writes:
>>I am questioning behaviour that leads to a woman weighing 300 lbs!
>
>>day until they weigh 300 lbs.
>
>>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
>
> Even if it is and does, you still haven't explained why "one must question"
> the behavior or speculate about its psychological causes. Or do you go
> around routinely questioning everyone's behavior and speculating about its
> psychological causes? If so, sounds like _you're_ the one with the
> minor psychological problem.
>
David has stated that he reads health periodicals and journals "religiously."
I read (subscribe) to several health publications and I have seen little
emphasis on psychological disorders as a basis for obesity. Actually what
I do see is a hell of a lot emphasis on eating improperly, not knowing how
to shop for healthful foods, and a lack of exercise. BTW the best way
to lose midriff fat is to just get out and walk everyday.
I have struggled with my weight all my life and the psychological scars
that I have came from my own grandmother who reminded me of my chubbiness
everytime she sewed a dress for me. Nobody needs that kind of hype.
When I married, my husband told me that I had the perfect frame for
motherhood, wide hipbones. He thought I'd have no trouble "birthing
babies." I'm sick of such comments. I have been through periods of my
life when I was borderline anorexic. I don't believe the causes of
obesity are psychological, though I believe the effects are psychological
and physical (obviously).
When I worked at the hospital, one of my friends was complaining about being
too thin and one of the pathologists got in on the discussion. We were
talking about metabolism, and I commented that mine was terrible. He
corrected me right away and said that I, in fact, had a very efficient
metabolism. I don't eat anymore than any of my thin friends. I just
metabolise "everything" I eat. Plus I was eating the wrong foods,
because (guess what!) I didn't know any better.
The key (and David you should know this if you really do read as much as
you say you do [it was you, wasn't it? could have been Eric]) is to
eat foods low in fat and mild aerobic exercise (walking). It's not that
easy finding processed foods that are low in fat, it's even harder to
eat meals away from home.
I'm bothered by comments that someone is obese because they are a
psychological basketcase.
Nancy
Please don't jump on me about my .sig... chocolate in moderation is
just fine IMO (deprivation is boring)...just count it in with your fat
grams for the day. A hamburger or a croissant top the list in fat
grams. Thank you.
**************************************************************************
Pets are able to sense if their owners are emotionally distressed ...
(actually they can smell the chocolate). _Kathy_
Frank Mayhar
|> ["nyah, nyah"]
It _is_ possible, Eric, to killfile anything posted from a site. I have
done so. It is also possible to post something to soc.singles that amounts
to more than "nyah, nyah," but you obviously don't realize this. You are
playing a silly, childish little game. I refuse to join you.
Anything further goes in email.
Keith Warren Rickert
>I'm not quite sure how to parse this, but it sounds as though you believe
>people who weigh 300 lbs pig out every day. Here is a news flash for you.
>Some people get to weigh 300 lbs by eating pretty much what anyone eats
>(perhaps slightly larger portions) but being suddenly unable to exercise,
>or to exercise as vigorously as they once did.
Not criticizing Sydney here, rather wanting to amplify it.
Some people have metabolisms so convinced that their owner is
in danger of starvation, that they operate at remarkable levels
of efficiency, and these people can gain large amounts of weight
at even smaller portions than most people eat.
One of the best ways to end up with a metabolism like this is
dieting for short-term weight loss, which is part of why
crash diets really dont work to accomplish long-term weight loss
for most people.
Keith
--
Keith Rickert |
ke...@imppig.caltech.edu | "death - the undiscovered country from
ric...@cco.caltech.edu | whose bourne no traveler returns"
| -Hamlet, Act III
Dr. Brat
> In article <1994Apr18...@desire.wright.edu> ecou...@desire.wright.edu (Dr. Brat) writes:
>>
>>Quoted from a secondary article. The original hasn't reached my site:
>>
>>> In article <CoB2q...@bldrdoc.gov>,
>>> <ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:>>>>Frank, you've been putting a tad too much sugar on your breakfast cereal
>>>>again. Now take a deep breath and count to ten.
>>>>Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
>>>
>>
>>I would just like to quietly point out that if Mr. Boltz were as much of
>>an expert as he wants us all to think he is, he would know that the most
>>recent research shows no apparent correlation between levels of sugar
>>consumed and erratic behavior. (Source: Tufts Diet and Nutrition Letter,
>>April 1994)
>
> I think he was being a bit sarcastic there but it behooves me to
> point out that article also says:
> "None of this is to say we have irrefutable proof that sugar never has
> an effect on behavior,..."
>
to see that we agree!
>>What I want to know is why Mr. Boltz appears to have taken a conciliatory
>>attitude towards me and Sydney, yet continues to go after Frank. Would
>>his attitude perhaps change if he knew that neither of us is available?
>>*snicker*
>
> Your both as available as I choose.
>
*heh* I should think so!
> More champagne?
Why, of course not! Everyone knows that champagne is the instrument
of the devil, employed by cads such as you to plunder sweet young things
such as myself of what little virtue we have left.
Ain't cha got no vodka?
James Anthony Mayhar
[juvenile followup deleted]
>Eric S. Boltz, M.S.E. *ebo...@nist.gov*
^ ^ ^
Most Smelly Excrescence?
>Materials Research Engineer ebo...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>National Institute of Standards and Technology NeXTMail Accepted
> (Ph.D. Candidate, Johns Hopkins University)
And look, he's getting himself Piled higher and Deeper!
James Mayhar
jam...@tamsun.tamu.edu
I enjoying posting juvenile followups too.
David Sandelands
: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX When you stand behind
: a foxy woman with auburn hair at the grocery checkout and notice she's
: in her late thirties and not wearing a wedding ring, do you speculate
: that minor psychological problems may lead her to be unable to fall in
: love with worthwhile men who treat her like a queen while she goes head
: over heels for scumbuckets and aloof, disinterested types time and time
: again? I hope not; I would say her psychology is noneofyourbeeswax.
Well Syd,
Typically, I wonder if she rides a road bike, owns a pair of hiking
boots, and likes west or east coast swing. I wonder if we will get married
and live happily ever after. If this chance meeting happens to occurr in a
cozy little beach market and I have a lot of confidence that day, I'll strike
up a conversation and ask her for her phone number or out for coffee.
Dave
The above statements reflect the oppinions the cyber personality
Dave Sandelands. This artificial ego exists solely to "ROCK THE BOAT"
in soc.singles. No other purpose is implied or intended.
Stef Jones
>There is a strong correlation between severe
>overeating and psychological problems.
There is a difference between overeating and being fat. Many people who
"severely overeat" are also bulemic and do not always look fat, and many
people who are fat do not overeat.
Furthermore, to the extent that you are intending to claim that all fat
people have psychological problems, are you sure that they're fat BECAUSE
of their problems, and not the other way around? After all, people who are
fat get a lot of abuse and misunderstanding in this society, and these are
known to cause psychological problems.
>Also as a general rule diet and exercise
>do work. Diet removes subcutaneous fat and exercise changes the bodys shape.
Yes, but in the vast majority of cases, something like 90%, people who diet
and exercise to lose weight gain the weight back within five years.
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
Imagination is the one weapon in the war against
reality. -- Jules de Gaultier
Stupidity seems to work well also. -- songbird
Aahz
In article <2ougl5$6...@lynx.unm.edu>,
David Sandelands <sand...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
>
>I am questioning behaviour that leads to a woman weighing 300 lbs!
>
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs. As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
Please demonstrate for our edification, if you will, what evidence you
possess (if any) that "self destructive behavior" is a phrase you have
the intellect to place in its proper context.
>The above statements reflect the oppinions the cyber personality
>Dave Sandelands. This artificial ego exists solely to provoke debate.
>Oppinions expressed by this artificial cyber personality DO NOT REFLECT
>the beliefs of any liviving man who may also use this name.
<plonk>
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
Androgynous kinky vanilla queer het
Seeking job in Silicon Valley doing database tech support. E-mail for resume.
Stef Jones
>Some people who weight 300 lbs weigh 300 lbs because their genes, or
>their metabolism, or _something_, thinks that's what they ought to
>weigh.
Or because they were put on diets when they were slightly chubby children,
so afterward their bodies behaved as if they were being starved.
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
L.A. Style merged with Buzz, a magazine that takes
shallowness to new depths. --Mixed Metaphor Hall of Fame
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
>Indeed many female body builders weigh 140 lbs. However as you pointed out
>they have very little body fat are certainly not overweight.
In fact, I believe there is increasing evidence that many female
body builders with their low body fat percentage are _underfat_
wrt optimal body fat percentage for females, and that being under
a certain body fat or dietary fat percentage can cause (different but)
equally serious health problems as well (example: increased incidence of
certain cancers in areas with a very low fat diet and concomittent low
incidence of diseases associated with high fat diets)
>Here I must respectfully disagree. There is a strong correlation between
>severe overeating and psychological problems.
Hmmmmmm. There is a strong correlation between incidence of depression
and female sex too. Why? Well, come to find out, when the definition
of clinical depression used to make the diagnosis was developed, it
included feelings commonly expressed by women in certain situations
likely to promote depression, and excluded feelings commonly expressed
by men in the same situations (I can pull up a source if desired, not
with me) Therefore, depression is defined in a way which biases the
diagnosis towards including more women.
Since "severe overweight" is essentially defined, in our society, as a
symptom of psychological problems and since severly overweight people
are subjected to a lifelong barrage of messages _telling_ them that
they should feel unworthy in various ways, it doesn't surprise me that
there is a strong correlation perceived. Question is, is it a stronger
correlation than can be found between the same "psychological problems"
and other behaviors, and if there is a causality, in which direction
does it lie (ie, do people who are physiologically predisposed towards
obesity develop psychological problems because of how they are treated
in our society, or do people who have psychological problems of a certain
nature develop obesity?) I don't think this is at all clear.
>Also as a general rule diet and exercise do work.
Oh? In the short term, sure; in the long term......do tell.
I'm going to have to do some source digging but I believe one study showed
that something like 90% of people who lose more than 30 lbs and maintain the
weight loss for >2 years eventually regained the original weight.
They all have psychological problems (more than the average person) and
despite being able to stick to a 1000 calorie a day diet and exercise program
for more than two years, lack discipline in this area of their lives, I guess.
*snort*
>Diet removes subcutaneous fat and exercise changes the bodys shape.
Actually, I think several studies have shown that one long term effect
of dieting is an eventual _increase_ in body fat percentage.
>I strongly disagree with your statement that therapy doesn't work. For the
>extremely obese, nothing will work until the basic psychological problems
>which lead to overeating are solved.
Which sounds to me like you've set up a neat little tautological loop;
if you're overweight, by your definition, you have psychological problems.
Diet and exercise work if you don't have psychological problems so since
diet and exercise can be shown not to work for many overweight people this
proves that they have psychological problems or else diet and exercise
would work.
I say does not follow; maybe the fact that sometimes diet and exercise
don't work shows that other as-yet-not-understood physiological factors
are involved.
Sydney
Keith R. Smith
>
>I am not questioning your friends selfworth, selfesteem, moral values,
>fitness as a mother or mental aqility.
>
>
>No one, or at least very few people, conciously decide to pig out every
>day until they weigh 300 lbs.
Hi Dave!
I just want to make a point of fact here. You seem to express the idea
that one must "pig out", consciously or otherwise, in order to get overfat.
This is inaccurate. A person can gain fat as a sedentary person, on
_fewer calories_ than it would take to maintain their weight as an active
person. Add to that, the fact that some persons, b/c of their genetics,
have a tendency to gain more readily than others. Such a person might
easily gain 10-20 pounds per year on a calorie intake that would reduce
you or I to "skin-n-bones" in no time. Where the weight of an active
person may fluctuate about his/her "fit weight", the weight of a sedentary
person will tend to creep up.... faster at some times and slower at others,
but always upward. Add to this, the fact that the Standard American Diet
will fatten up _anybody_! I did not believe this until after I turned 30.
Therefore, a person who tends to gain easily in the first place, would have
to eat differently than all of his/her friends _and_ exercise more, just to
keep from turning into a total blimp. For whatever reason, they choose not
to do this. Maybe they were "turned off" from physical activity as a child,
and never got over it. If this be the case (and often it _is_ the case),
then all that is left is dieting (as in calorie restriction). If one is
already inactive, then their calorie requirements are low to begin with
(ie, low metabolism), so reducing calories even further, though it may take
some weight off in the near term, tends to drive the metabolism even lower.
What ultimately happens is that they come off of the diet (b/c it was too
severe to stick with for the long haul, anyway), and gradually revert to
eating like "everybody else", and end up getting still fatter overall on
the same, or even fewer, calories than what sustained their weight in the
first place. Each weight reduction (in the absence of muscle training)
strips off fat _and_ muscle, and each weight gain (under the same conditions)
adds fat w/o adding muscle. A yo-yo dieter (a good buddy of mine is one)
gets still fatter after each weight reduction..... even if he only gets
back to his previous weight, b/c now there is less muscle to go around.
>As I said, barring medical problems, this
>self detructive behaviour has a psychological cause.
>
>Dave
>
>--
Keith R
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
>Quoted from a secondary article. The original hasn't reached my site:
>> In article <CoB2q...@bldrdoc.gov>,
>> <ebo...@nist.gov or ebo...@acoustica.mrd.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>>>Frank, you've been putting a tad too much sugar on your breakfast cereal
>>>again. Now take a deep breath and count to ten.
>>>Sorry Frank I don't scare that easy; I'm afraid you're stuck with me.
>I would just like to quietly point out that if Mr. Boltz were as much of
>an expert as he wants us all to think he is, he would know that the most
>recent research shows no apparent correlation between levels of sugar
>consumed and erratic behavior. (Source: Tufts Diet and Nutrition Letter,
>April 1994)
*chuckle*
>What I want to know is why Mr. Boltz appears to have taken a conciliatory
>attitude towards me and Sydney, yet continues to go after Frank. Would
>his attitude perhaps change if he knew that neither of us is available?
Well, in fairness, I think I should point out that perhaps a strong
adversarial approach tends to provoke and further same, and while I
too have noticed that Mr. Boltz seems more conciliatory towards some
posters than towards others who IMO made pretty much the same points,
perhaps the level of adversarial nature perceived in the response has
something to do with it (in other words it kinda looks to me like some
of Frank's buttons perhaps got well and truly pushed and he came out
swinging instead of simply pointing out what the buttons were)
Regards,
Sydney
Keith R. Smith
>David Sandelands <sand...@us17503.mdc.com> wrote:
>
>>Also as a general rule diet and exercise
>>do work. Diet removes subcutaneous fat and exercise changes the bodys shape.
>
>Yes, but in the vast majority of cases, something like 90%, people who diet
>and exercise to lose weight gain the weight back within five years.
Hi Stef!
Those that gain the (fat) weight back, do so b/c they quit the diet and
exercise plan. This can happen for any number of reasons, but topping
the list are:
1) they did not enjoy their chosen exercise plan
2) they did not enjoy (or could not abide by) their chosen
diet plan
The first case can come about if one is training mainly "to lose weight",
and end up measuring their progress by the scale. They may do something
that they _really dislike_ doing, simply b/c the results will register
on the scale faster, and if the numbers _still_ don't go down as fast as
they want them to, then they may end up overtraining, in an effort to
speed things up. These persons eventually "burn out". Overdoing it,
even in an activity that you used to enjoy, will quickly make it into
a drag and a chore..... ie., something that you need discipline to
continue. If you choose a fun (to you) activity, and take it at your
own pace, then you will continue.... not out of discipline or "will
power", but out of the sheer joy of doing. Weight control and improved
fitness become a pleasant "side-effect" in this case.
The second case comes about when one changes his/her diet primarily
for purposes of weight loss, as opposed to enhanced health or performance.
Many a "weight-loss diet" will sap the energy right out of anybody who
is trying to lead an active life. You cannot train well if you are going
around hungry and miserable, and if you are simply about cutting calories
and _not_ exercising, then you will slow your metabolism ever further,
which will set you up for a "hellified" rebound effect. The bottom
line is that any changes in your diet should be gradual, and if beneficial,
they should be long term. I have simply seen too many of my friends opt
for some sort of "crash diet" b/c they are in a hurry to lose a few pounds,
only to fail b/c they could not "live with" the diet. Other folx only
think about diet when they decide that thay have gotten "too fat". They
then use some sort of bland, boring, extremely-low-cal diet as a "penance"
for their sin of being "too fat". I have a buddy who is a yo-yo dieter.
He will stick with a "diet" for _months_, that I would quit after a few
days. Don't tell me that he is lacking in will-power (or is that "won't
power"?). Somehow the idea of a healthy diet for life has not sunk in.
I mean, he will go from living off of cheesesteaks and candy bars for
a year or two, to living on plain oatmeal (I mean, _really_ plain, no
sugar, no butter, no fruit) and grapefruits for several months, with
almost no transition period. He gets this mind-set that "if it is
pleasant, then it is not _really_ dieting".
>
>-- Stef
Keith R
Sydney D. Hoeltzli
>Frank wrote:
>> Sydney, at least, has
>> the benefit of a history of fairly accurate and well-thought-out statements.
>Couldn't agree with you more. Sydney also doesn't resort to anger and
>name calling. I've read Sydney's posts mister and your no Sydney.
*eeeeeep*!!!
Um, thanks for the good words, guys, but please, can you leave me
out of it? I feel kind of uncomfortable about this.
Thanks!
Sydney
Mary
> Seeking job in Silicon Valley doing database tech support. E-mail for
> resume.
Hmmm, maybe I should try this too.
Mary
Seeking job in New Brunswick area doing tarot card readings. E-mail for
sample prediction.