Posts by Danielle
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't make any claims about how many calories that is, because there is a massive range of efficiency (clearly it's unbounded at the inefficient end), different for every person.
Um, so one solution *doesn't* fit everyone? Didn't you just change your mind about what your argument is again?
Anyway. So your argument *now* is that *some* fat people, rather than being duplicitous liars who eat heaps all the time, are actually so mightily efficient at storing every single calorie they eat, that each of them should be on some sort of set incredibly-limited-calorie diet for the rest of their entire lives so they can be thin. While anyone else who wins the genetic lottery can sit around eating deep-fried bon-bons and mocking the fatties for being worthless lazyasses.
You know, call me crazy, but I don't think that's going to work out so well for either group.
-
We live in an era in which political leaders lie to us, in which our entire economy is collapsing and political discussion is diverted by talk of spaceships. I cannot help but see a connexion.
I love having the concept of 'panem et circenses' explained to me when I talk about popular culture on the internet. Because it's only happened about, oh, one million times. It's so... refreshing.
-
What's impossible is the converse (you got it right), that you can eat nothing at all, and yet still maintain weight (and continue to live and move).
But... no one here has ever argued that.
I find it mega-weird that you're all 'sure, that's totally happening' about my thin friend eating like a horse and maintaining her weight, yet you're also all 'nah, that couldn't possibly be happening' about a fat person not eating much (not 'nothing', just 'not very much') and staying fat. Does not compute.
(Also, it's not as if I disagree with your main point about healthy food and exercise. But, you know, *no one* disagrees with that point. It's a no-brainer.)
-
What I don't understand is why no one ever uses the converse (inverse? I really have to look the difference up one day) example of one person to 'prove' things. I'm sure we all have that one slender friend who eats like a horse, doesn't exercise particularly strictly, and never gains a pound. I've known someone for a over a decade who regularly eats six slices of toast for breakfast. Never stops eating throughout the day, and not just broccoli either. Thin as a rail. Unlike Ben, I do not think of my friends 'hey, she's sneakily doing four hours a day on the treadmill and puking it up later! That's how she stays so thin!' Instead, I think 'well, that's apparently just what her body does with food. Lucky her'. Because, you know, *people are different*. And stuff.
-
Best. Post. Ever.
Oh yes, I forgot to say: this post wins a 'righteous!' award.
-
I'd be careful saying that. Danielle might hear you.
Heh. Believe me, I hate some particularly, erm, *librarianish* librarians just as much as the rest of you. Probably more. I think calling it a 'librarian state' would be vastly more accurate than 'nanny'.
(Example: nz-libs' debate about S92a actually included some tosser saying 'as an information professional, I am embarrassed by all the to-do over this issue'. O RLY?)
-
Okaaay, reasoning aside, did you notice that the net practical effect of your complaint was to drive the thread even further off topic?
I feel like this should be some kind of Godwin-esque interweb law of probability or something. The more any person attempts to anoint themselves the On-Topic Police, the less likely it is that anyone in the thread will remain on-topic. (How would that be expressed as a formula, I ask all the people who didn't fail maths in high school?)
Also, do we even *have* 'on-topic' at PAS?
I am, however, intrigued by this:
I find people hijacking conversations to enthuse about... their sex lives to be very rude.
What on earth did I miss? Is it lost in the copyright thread somewhere?
(Lucy, to answer your question, I think it was about 60% overtones of the former, and 30% overtones of the latter. With perhaps a 10% soupcon of 'oh god, not AGAIN' from me.)
-
Well, not at someone like Giovanni's level of meta. ;) Gender history of any stripe does tend to be all about framing and context, of course...
-
seemingly coming from a mixture of greed and living in a sycophantic bubble
If they don't bloody hurry up, the last generation likely to pay for actual CDs (shit, even *I* don't buy them any more) is going to die off and they'll lose vast swathes of money anyway.
Also: I am buying Beatles Rock Band the day it comes out. :)
-
The stuff I'm talking about was more on the 'history of science' tip, rather than the postmodern end of the scale.