aurora stupidly wrote a follow-up:
Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex carbs".

Why?

It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the term

I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.

and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry"). FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

...
A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat.

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. It's not a glorified term, it's an
accepted nutritional and scientific nomenclature predating the late Dr Atkins
and the whole fad dieting craze he spawned.

"Plant fat"? What the **** does that mean?

Polysaccharides are complex bonds of sugar groups. They don't contain a lipid
group, so I don't know what the **** you mean. I suspect you don't, either.

Poly sacchride basically means "many sugars".

Too bad Pulitzer doesn't give awards for usenet posts, because I am sure you
would win one for clearing up this matter.

/sarcasm

Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
eventually converted to them.

Not fully. That's the problem with your pseudoscience. The body doesn't break
them down completely, nor does the body absorb them fully.

snip of misinformation
However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor...

Actually, it's a pretty important factor. The longer food remains in your body,
the more nutrients are digested. A diet with sufficient fiber (gee, like that
found in foods rich in complex carbs) passes through faster than one without
sufficient fiber (the late Dr Atkins found only one point of agreement in a
discussion with Dr McDougall on Dr Mc's show: that Dr Atkins' diet causes
constipation).

total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars.

Bullshit. Prove this claim.

snip rest of bullshit

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
aurora wrote:
...
I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,

Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER*
embraced
animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong
exception
to me. Asshole!

My mistake... I had assumed you were supporting a pro-AR stance since I
thought I saw some of your postings in an AR NG. I appologize.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic.

Bullshit. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting
will
work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave
as
much, etc.).

I think this is hysterical, because I speak from the persepctive of someone
who isn't making excuses, but someone who has first hand experience. So your
hypothetical argument about the validity of a high glycemic load diet
amounts to crap in my eyes.

I went from 275 lbs to 135 lbs (size 8/9)
I went from never experience eating satisfaction to being satisfied with
small quantities of food.
I went from expressing numerous symptoms of IRS to expressing virtually
none.
As for my PCOS (very mature by the way to insult me for that), before I was
plagued with acne, compltely absent menses, facial hair, and erratic moods.
Within a week of removing the majority of dietary carbohydrate all of my
acne cleared up. My moods were balanced. My menses are much more regular.
The facial and body hair has thinned to the point where it is almost peach
fuzz.

All of these changes I brought about by changing nothing other than total
glycemic load. I went from eating a very high carb diet (maybe 70%) to
eating about 15% of calories from carbs. I went from needing to snack all
day just to avoid the "shakiness" and irritability of hypoglycemia, to being
able to (and enjoying) eating very infrequently and very small amounts of
food should I desire to, or be in a situation which requires such.

So, like I said, I kind of don't buy your BS. The only thing I changed about
my lifestyle was diet - carbohydrate content, and it brought a complete
recovery. It's sad you are so stubborn that you refuse to accept the
*scientifically valid fact* that genes largely determine a persons ability
in handling a high glycemic load diet. Native americans tend to have poor
sugar metabolisms, whereas asians tend to have better ones, etc. Individuals
likewise vary widely.

The rest of your post amounts to no more than gross misinformation, refusing
to read what I've written (i.e. insisting the body needs to derive glucose
from carbohydrate when I had already explained the body can make its own
glucose via the synthesis of amino acids using the gluconeogenesis pathway)
and pathetically blunted personal attacks calling me a "stupid fat ****"
(despite the fact I am not overweight) or attacking me for having PCOS
(which I control through diet alone).
Sorry, but just admit you are an ignoramous. You are probably a young male
who has never lost weight, never had to think about weight, and thinks he
knows it all. You bash fat people to make yourself feel better. You are the
sort of person who would be calling for the "lynching of n*ggers" if it were
still socially in favor. You are a lemming. You are the sort of person who
has a hard time thinking for himself (hense your email address) and
therefore is highly suspicious of new information that has not yet been
accepted as self-evident by mainstream society, despite the growing body of
evidence in favor (which, by the way, you ignore like a stubborn mule as you
did my argument against the dietary necessity of carbohydrate dense food).
What a waste of time it was trying to converse with you. Originally I
mistook you for a vegan - who, by the way, are usually quite intelligent and
open to debate - which is why I initiated conversation. If I knew you were
some radical right-wing joiner yesman non-thinking trog I would have avoided
you right from the start.

Have fun drooling on yourself and attacking sick people, you pathetic loser.

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
aurora stupidly wrote a follow-up:
Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex
carbs".

Why?

It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the
term

I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.

and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and
everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a
thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry").
FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

Yes, I totally believe you are the sort of person who is swayed by logic and
not emotion. That is why you insist on calling me a "fat ****", carry your
arguments by trying to deface the other poster, and have repeatedly
demonstrated a resistence to information if it does not suit your emotional
preconception. You didn't learn what you know about nutrition from the back
of a cereal box (OMG SEE, I'M GETTING ALL MY SERVINGS!), or from what you
heard from your best friend who's mom is a nurse and knows about these
things. No, not at all. LOL.


...
A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat.

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. It's not a glorified term, it's
an
accepted nutritional and scientific nomenclature predating the late Dr
Atkins
and the whole fad dieting craze he spawned.
Oh please shut up. People hear the word "complex carbohydrate" and
subconsciously they think "oh, see, it's COMPLEX! It isn't SIMPLE, therefore
it's GOOD FOR ME". This simplistic thinking fueled the anti-fat movement.
"OH how can eating FAT be good for me, FAT is made of FAT!"

You've repeatedly demonstrated to be the sort of fool who would draw such
emotional group-think conconclusions.

"Plant fat"? What the **** does that mean?

Polysaccharides are complex bonds of sugar groups. They don't contain a
lipid
group, so I don't know what the **** you mean. I suspect you don't,
either.

Way to demonstrate your ignorance. A polysacchride is an energy storage
vessel for plants (i.e. it serves the same physiological purpose that FAT
does in humans, which is why complex carbohydrates tend to be - but not
always - very dense in carbohydrate/energy)

Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
eventually converted to them.

Not fully. That's the problem with your pseudoscience. The body doesn't
break
them down completely, nor does the body absorb them fully.

This is complete garbage. *Some* are very hard for your body to use into
energy, namely cellulose. Cellulose produces small amounts of energy as SCFA
via bacterial fermentation. It is almost calorie free. A high fiber diet
with lots of green leafies is very healthy. Your body can not only not use
these complex carbs, but grean leafies contain lots of nutrition.

However, these exceptions are not the rule. By far the majority of complex
carbohydrates consumed by people - rices, cereals, grains, tubers - are
converted to energy readily, easily, and entirely. They also contain very
little nutrition compared to the total calories and carbs.

You'll never hear me argue against the GOOD complex carbs - the kinds high
in fiber and low in starch.

snip of misinformation
How convenient

However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor...

Actually, it's a pretty important factor. The longer food remains in your
body,
the more nutrients are digested. A diet with sufficient fiber (gee, like
that
found in foods rich in complex carbs) passes through faster than one
without
sufficient fiber (the late Dr Atkins found only one point of agreement in
a
discussion with Dr McDougall on Dr Mc's show: that Dr Atkins' diet causes
constipation).

Hahahaha what a fool!
The atkins diet is extremely high in fiber. I easily eat 4 cups of leafy
greens a day, as well as other fiberous complex carbs like peppers,
eggplant, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, etc.

total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars.

Bullshit. Prove this claim.

I guess all those people who fall into a hyperglycemic slumber after a big
baked potato are lying. I guess their glucose meters are lying too.

I am convinced starch is worse than simple sugars, since when one eats
starch they usually eat a large quantity of it. They also are more inclined
to think it is good for them.

I know I promised not to respond to you anymore, but your twisting of my
words (pretending to believe I was attacking low-starch/sugar fiberous
complex carbs rather than the grains) had to be clarified for the NG.

aurora wrote:
...

I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,

Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER*
embraced
animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong
exception
to me. Asshole!

My mistake... I had assumed you were supporting a pro-AR stance since I
thought I saw some of your postings in an AR NG. I appologize.

Your apology would be more meaningful if you'd just left it at that.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic.

Bullshit. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting
will
work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave
as
much, etc.).

I think this is hysterical,

There was no hysteria involved in my post. My claim is based upon sound research
and medical opinion, not propaganda from proponents of a specific diet. I posted
some links previously in this thread. Ah, here we go...

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

because I speak from the persepctive of someone
who isn't making excuses, but someone who has first hand experience.

Anecdote, not science.

So your
hypothetical argument about the validity of a high glycemic load diet
amounts to crap in my eyes.

Where the **** did I *ever* recommend a *HIGH GL DIET*? I said GL was more
useful as a tool than just GI. I also said that restrictive diets should be used
only for those with genuine metabolic disorders rather than healthy people who
just need to shed a few pounds. Stop taking me out of context.

snip testimonials
As for my PCOS (very mature by the way to insult me for that),

Consider yourself lucky. I usually tear a new one in people who blatantly
misstate what I actually wrote.

before I was
plagued with acne, compltely absent menses, facial hair, and erratic moods.
Within a week of removing the majority of dietary carbohydrate all of my
acne cleared up. My moods were balanced. My menses are much more regular.
The facial and body hair has thinned to the point where it is almost peach
fuzz.

You still shave?

snip more testilying prattle
The rest of your post amounts to no more than gross misinformation,

Prove it.

refusing to read what I've written

WTF do you think you did to my post, idiot? I read your post. I addressed its
flawed points. Not everyone has PCOS (I sure as hell don't; my body came with
testicles instead of ovaries -- go figure). Not everyone is IR; some of us work
out and eat right. Not everyone has diabetes. Normal people are *not* advised to
eat a diet for people with such conditions as some kind of prophylactic; normal
people who do that for those reasons have an eating disorder. Stop making
distorted generalizations for the rest of society based on your peculiar
circumstances and misunderstandings of nutritional science.

and pathetically blunted personal attacks calling me a "stupid fat ****"
(despite the fact I am not overweight)

One can be a fat **** and be skinny as a rail.

or attacking me for having PCOS

I didn't attack you.

...
Sorry, but just admit you are an ignoramous. You are probably a young male
who has never lost weight,

I lost a few pounds after my last triathlon. Not to worry, it usually happens.

never had to think about weight, and thinks he
knows it all. You bash fat people to make yourself feel better.

I haven't bashed you, dummy.

You are the
sort of person who would be calling for the "lynching of n*ggers" if it were
still socially in favor.

I *seriously* doubt that, especially given the number of times people like you
have called me one.

You are a lemming. You are the sort of person who
has a hard time thinking for himself (hense your email address)

One thing in my favor: I can spell "hence."

and
therefore is highly suspicious of new information that has not yet been
accepted as self-evident by mainstream society, despite the growing body of
evidence in favor (which, by the way, you ignore like a stubborn mule as you
did my argument against the dietary necessity of carbohydrate dense food).

"Self-evident" is not science, you quack. Science is founded on proofs. The
"growing body" is insufficient for me to recommend that HEALTHY people adopt a
restrictive diet. Why is it insufficient? Because the studies on safety are all
over very short terms. We already know enough about long-term consumption of
saturated fats and CHD (just as we know enough about long-term consumption of
excess simple carbohydrates and diabetes).

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that

What a waste of time it was trying to converse with you. Originally I
mistook you for a vegan - who, by the way, are usually quite intelligent and
open to debate -

Really? I've found them to be just the opposite -- more like you. The focus is
on the agenda, and anything deviating from the agenda is rank heresy. Too bad
you couldn't just call me a heretic, you engaged in calling me names. Wow, I am
underwhelmed.

which is why I initiated conversation. If I knew you were
some radical right-wing joiner yesman non-thinking trog I would have avoided
you right from the start.

Are you even capable of addressing people as unique individuals or does negative
stereotyping help you cope with others who disagree with you?

Have fun drooling on yourself and attacking sick people, you pathetic loser.

Another difference between us: I *always* have fun. :-)

aurora wrote:
...
Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex
carbs".

Why?

Answer the question.

It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the
term
I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.
and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and
everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a
thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry").
FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

Yes, I totally believe you are the sort of person who is swayed by logic and
not emotion.

Logic isn't necessarily science, though science uses it. It's a branch of
philosophy. Science is empirical. Your posts are not.

That is why you insist on calling me a "fat ****",

It's very fitting.

carry your
arguments by trying to deface the other poster,

Not entirely. You wouldn't know that with your poor reading comprehension, would
you.

and have repeatedly
demonstrated a resistence to information if it does not suit your emotional
preconception.

I don't harbor "preconceptions," and my resistance to your disinformation is
based on science rather than propaganda. I honestly don't understand your
dietary zealotry. Too bad you sat on your fat ass and ate a lot of sweets and
got PCOS and grew hair all over your body. That's not my problem, it's yours.
Most women won't ever get diabetes, insulin resistance, or PCOS. For those who
do, I've no objection to promoting a restrictive diet for them. But what's good
for your self-inflicted malady isn't good for all of society. The one thing you
have in common with vegans is your irrational zeal in demanding all people eat
just like you. You're as authoritarian about diet as vegans are. Your diet has
become your religion, and your Satan is any simple carbohydrate; his demons are
complex carbs.

You didn't learn what you know about nutrition from the back
of a cereal box (OMG SEE, I'M GETTING ALL MY SERVINGS!), or from what you
heard from your best friend who's

whose... if you're going to mock me and do exactly what you accused me of doing,
then PLEASE, for crying out loud, learn to spell.

mom is a nurse and knows about these
things. No, not at all. LOL.

My education and work experience go far beyond cereal boxes and getting things
third-hand.

...
Oh please shut up. People hear the word "complex carbohydrate" and
subconsciously

Can you *prove* that there's any such subconscious connection? Or are you just
blowing a bunch of smoke out of your ass based on your superiority complex which
leads you to argue that everyone -- healthy or not -- should eat YOUR diet
instead of a well-balanced one?

...
total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars.

Bullshit. Prove this claim.

I guess all those people who fall into a hyperglycemic slumber after a big
baked potato are lying. I guess their glucose meters are lying too.

Anecdotal evidence isn't proof. I don't fall into a slumber after eating baked
potatoes (or pasta, or anything else). There's another anecdote for your
collection, stupid.

I am convinced starch is worse than simple sugars, since when one eats
starch they usually eat a large quantity of it.

If they lack discipline like you do.

They also are more inclined to think it is good for them.

It is.

I know I promised not to respond to you anymore,

You will again. You can't resist it, and you wholly lack discipline. That's why
you got so fat that your ovaries went haywire. You've replaced one eating
disorder for another, and you're on a mission to defend your "faith" in it. I'll
still be here advocating sensible diets and exercise for HEALTHY people when you
jump on the next bandwagon.

but your twisting of my
words (pretending to believe I was attacking low-starch/sugar fiberous
complex carbs rather than the grains) had to be clarified for the NG.

I'm sure everyone else really appreciates your defense of your low-carb religion.

I would be careful taking any supplements that are over 50%of the USDA
recommended amounts. I don't know why companies that make supplements
do not make smaller doses (my wife cannot stand anything that is over
250 mg).

I will never go on the Atkinks diet because your body just doesn't use
all that protein, and your guts will have a hard time getting rid of
it all if you do not eat A LOT of fiber. Guess where fiber comes
from? Carbs (wheat)? So if you want to plug up your system with a
bunch of undigested meat....

By the way, you are squeezing all the fat out of that meat right? Go
ahead, warm up that meat to about 150 deg, put it between some paper
towels and press down. I guarantee that if you do that to one of
those fast food burgers (you can order them just meat and bread, and
reheat it in the microwave) and actually see how much grease is in the
meat, you will never order anything but a small burger (not the
quarter pounders and above) again.

I say this also because some farm growers are worried about their
juice market because of this diet. With so many people on the go, it
pays to drink several juices (v8, grape, apple, orange, etc.) becuase
it may not be economical to buy fresh fruit that costs three times as
much as juice (come on now, what is the difference between a fruit in
a blender?)?

One of the best ways of loosing weight is to go swimming, because you
sweat your buns off (literally), yet do not realize it because you are
in the water. Now the problem for a lot of people is access to a
pool, you need money (hint, hint).

I quit drinking soda and lost about 10 pounds, and feel a lot stabler
(no ups and downs).


(Jim Carver) wrote in message . com...
Hello Bob!

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the

You are correct 100%. Moral weakness, which I am sure he was trying
to use as a slang term has nothing to do with loosing. I have worked
as a nutritionist with dozens of people, and have found that we
basically has the same amount of will power no matter what I walk of
life. The trick is trying to understand why are are craving what you
are...

Education, on the other hand, like every other subject in in life, is
exceptionally powerful in dealing with cravings and weight control.
The only problem is that there is so much miss-information out there
that it is just sickening...

common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

And you would be right again in this regard. Fat consumption in a
diet is used by the body in its ability to metabolize testosterone,
among other things of course. If you reduce to a low level of fat in
you diet, the biggest thing you will notice the most is a lethargic
feeling and a lack sex drive. This is due to your test.numbers
falling to the floor... Now that sucks, doesn't it??

Also, Please do not think that fat intake = fat absorbed. This is a
classic fallacy that many people fall for. Carbohydrates have a
considerably more amount of energy in the respect of body glucose
uptake, and is always preferred by the body. Once again, people do
not get fat from Low GI carb sources, but rather from high insulin
responses from eating high GI carb sources.

Think about it this way, on a ketonic diet (ie. Atkins, inc), the
approach is to force the body to convert fat to energy as its primary
source. Weight will just shoot off people when doing this?. No, I did
no say it was healthy, though? :-)

Take a look if you are interested in several postings that I have up
on the big.folks and fat.acceptance groups. I think you might be
interested in some of the factual information about how the body
metabolizes foods.

Jim Carver

Bob in CT wrote in message ...
On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
wrote:

In article , usual suspect wrote:
Ignoramus20355 wrote:
Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too
much orange
juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
you consume
way too many calories.

That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
trivial, and uninteresting.

The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.

Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.

Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the
common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
fat = terrible.

In article ,
(oops_there_it_is) wrote:


I will never go on the Atkinks diet because your body just doesn't use
all that protein, and your guts will have a hard time getting rid of
it all if you do not eat A LOT of fiber. Guess where fiber comes
from? Carbs (wheat)? So if you want to plug up your system with a
bunch of undigested meat....

Fiber also comes from brocolli, spinach, berries, and nuts, all of which
you can eat on the Atkins diet, plus many more vegetables. I don't buy the
propaganda of meat plugging up you digestive system anyway. And I also
don't buy that Atkinsers or other low-carbers eat more meat than the
general population. Meat is a higher percentage of my diet now, but the
amount is lower because the amount of everything I eat is lower. I used to
eat veggie and meat stir-fry with pasta or rice, now I leave out the pasta
and rice and add more veggies, and the amount I used to eat at one sitting
is now 3 meals worth.


By the way, you are squeezing all the fat out of that meat right? Go
ahead, warm up that meat to about 150 deg, put it between some paper
towels and press down. I guarantee that if you do that to one of
those fast food burgers (you can order them just meat and bread, and
reheat it in the microwave) and actually see how much grease is in the
meat, you will never order anything but a small burger (not the
quarter pounders and above) again.

This I can empathize with. I don't eat fast food anyway, but anything too
greasy gives me a stomach ache. When I do burgers at home I start with
lean ground beef, and I still squeeze most of the grease out.



I say this also because some farm growers are worried about their
juice market because of this diet. With so many people on the go, it
pays to drink several juices (v8, grape, apple, orange, etc.) becuase
it may not be economical to buy fresh fruit that costs three times as
much as juice (come on now, what is the difference between a fruit in
a blender?)?

It takes several fruits to make one glass of juice, which means the juice
has a lot more sugar than a piece of fruit, even when no sugar is added.
Plus, the juice is missing the fiber from the fruit.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

"Eva Whitley" wrote in message
...

And again with the fake "obesity epidemic."
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
"In the United States, obesity has risen at an epidemic rate during the past
20 years."
Is the CDC "faking" it also?

Laurie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:42:18 -0400, "Laurie" wrote:


"Eva Whitley" wrote in message
. ..

And again with the fake "obesity epidemic."
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
"In the United States, obesity has risen at an epidemic rate during
the past 20 years."
Is the CDC "faking" it also?

Laurie

yes. just like the "Commie" scare of the 1950's they are playing off
the public fears...and fat people are being vilified. There is no
excuse for that.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQK+PmukoPZAZfLgsEQLFtwCg7rKhv5NVYLIv9aZz0oufIe IPg38AoM7a
Up3yYPCn9XuBB3QD1Mw1hmD5
=KILn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lady Veteran wrote in message . ..
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:42:18 -0400, "Laurie" wrote:


"Eva Whitley" wrote in message
. ..

And again with the fake "obesity epidemic."
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
"In the United States, obesity has risen at an epidemic rate during
the past 20 years."
Is the CDC "faking" it also?

Laurie

yes. just like the "Commie" scare of the 1950's they are playing off
the public fears...and fat people are being vilified.

The thing that the public is afraid of is poor health and the loss
of vigor. Fat people are not being vilified, it is just that no one
wants to be like them.

There is no
excuse for that.


There are no excuses for the crime of fat acceptance.


LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQK+PmukoPZAZfLgsEQLFtwCg7rKhv5NVYLIv9aZz0oufIe IPg38AoM7a
Up3yYPCn9XuBB3QD1Mw1hmD5
=KILn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

wrote in message
snip
The thing that the public is afraid of is poor health and the loss
of vigor. Fat people are not being vilified, it is just that no one
wants to be like them.

Fat people generally don't either.

-Rubystars

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 23 May 2004 03:36:31 GMT, "Rubystars"
wrote:


wrote in message
snip
The thing that the public is afraid of is poor health and the
loss of vigor. Fat people are not being vilified, it is just that
no one wants to be like them.

Fat people generally don't either.

-Rubystars

I am sure that is true in come cases, the problem is that most resent
being told what is good for them. Fat people seem to be exempt from
that basis part of human nature. It seems to be ok to ridiculed and
told what to do.

It is usually done under the guise of the pretense of care, which
couldn't be further from the truth.

That is why we have idiot posting diet drek in SSFA. It is off
charter but they don't give a damn. The troll who started this
cross-post is a case in point also. SSFA wants no part of it.

I think I am going to have to turn into a net cop to do an
idiotectomy.

They think they are mad at me for telling them they are posting off
topic now , I am by no means finished.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQLDHJekoPZAZfLgsEQKLCACgo6xsw2mCRgx9DXPsPhHiL5 s3pYsAnjId
rfoQyHICGE1yJw/y9jiHszxq
=eCfd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----