66120ac8   
   XPost: soc.support.fat-acceptance, rec.travel.air, rec.aviation.piloting   
   From: @   
      
   "Ragnar"  wrote in message   
   news:3389a6c2-c718-45f0-9ce8-4bd71488cb70@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Nov 25, 12:36 pm, "Mike"  wrote:   
   > > "Ragnar"  wrote in message   
   > >   
   > > news:bc090c68-19c6-4f28-9eb8-eab4101b5aa0@x8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > > On Nov 25, 9:30 am, "Mike"  wrote:   
   > > > > "Ragnar"  wrote in message   
   > >   
   > > > >news:c7230a5c-c0e6-4d7c-9021-5c2fe49e68ee@o2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...   
   > >   
   > > > > > On Nov 24, 5:20 pm, "Mike"  wrote:   
   > > > > > > > Thank you captain obvious, that certainly is one reason for   
   > > > > > > > obesity   
   > > > > > > > but the issue is whether or not the individuals you are   
   > > > > > > > railing   
   > > > > > > > against are indeed obese for exactly that reason. In reality   
   > > > > > > > you   
   > > > > > > > really don’t know.   
   > >   
   > > > > > > OK, well it's the reason for at least 99.9% of them. Is that   
   > > > > > > better,   
   > > > > > > captain technicality?   
   > >   
   > > > > > Really, do you have hard data to back those numbers?   
   > >   
   > > > > Do your own research. Stop being lazy and expecting others to do   
   > > > > everything   
   > > > > for you. It's part of the reason for your affliction.   
   > >   
   > > > Thank you for the typical answer from the typical individual that   
   > > > pulls numbers of if his or her ass. May I remind you that I was not   
   > > > the one that made the original claim and if you do not have the data   
   > > > to back it up then just admit that you are full of shit and be done   
   > > > with it.   
   > >   
   > > What does being the one who "made the original claim" have to do with   
   > > anything? Either you think the number is way out of line or you asked   
   > > for   
   > > "proof" as part of your campaign to be a first rate chicken$hit (a title   
   > > you've already clinched).   
   > >   
   > What does making the original claim have to do with it?!!!! You’re   
   > obviously an idiot. Here’s a clue dipshit, if you are going to make   
   > blanket statements regarding just about anything, be ready to back   
   > them up otherwise everything you say falls in the opinion column and   
   > might just as well be ignored.   
      
   You can't answer the question other than to simply repeat your previous   
   nonsense.   
      
   Diversion noted.   
      
   > > If I'm wrong, where are all these people who are fat for other reasons?   
   > > I   
   > > know a lot of fat people, and all of them are fat because they are   
   > > sedentary   
   > > and eat too many calories. Now perhaps there is a place called   
   > > Fatfcukstan   
   > > where millions of obese people eat sensibly and exercise regularly, but   
   > > I'll   
   > > be damned if I can find it on any map.   
   > >   
   > Just because you know some fat people it doesn’t make you an expert on   
   > endocrinology. Do you have a medical degree or are you just blowing   
   > smoke again? Obesity has many underlying causes, most doctors know   
   > this and it is only uninformed retards like you that assign a black   
   > and white cause and effect to the issue.   
      
   It doesn't matter if there are hundreds or thousands of causes, pinhead.   
      
   The PRIMARY cause is too many calories and/or not enough activity.  You   
   don't have to be a physicist to know the sky is blue and water is wet,   
   either BTW.   
      
      
   > As far as not finding anything on a map goes. Don’t think that it   
   > proves anything other than you are stupid. It has been claimed that a   
   > high percentage of people in the US can’t even locate North America on   
   > a map, lol.   
      
   Got any PROOF of that, proof-boy?   
      
   No?   
      
   Ooops, you must be full if $hit, then.   
      
   But that was already quite apparent.   
      
      
   > > The numbers pulled from "his or her ass" were specifically intended to   
   > > be   
   > > just as unreasonable as the ridiculous point it was countering which   
   > > would   
   > > be obvious to anyone warmer than a room temperature IQ. You should learn   
   > > to   
   > > read between the lines. There's volumes of information you're missing   
   > > out   
   > > on.   
   > >   
   >  “Read between the lines” BULLSHIT. Learn to back your comments   
   > correctly before you open your mouth and if there are volumes of   
   > scientific info to back your simplistic claims then try producing at   
   > least one. After all, if there are volumes of such information it   
   > should be relatively easy.   
      
   Good job of proving you can't even read within the lines.   
      
   Try again.   
      
   > > > BTW, how do you know what I’m afflicted with or whether or not I’m   
   > > > afflicted at all? You propensity for assumption when you actually know   
   > > > nothing is astounding.   
   > >   
   > > How do you know what I was accusing you of being afflicted with? Did you   
   > > just make an "assumption"? Wow! I kind of like your game of chicken$hit.   
   > >   
   > > > > The truth hurts sometimes, I know, but that's why I provide it.   
   > > > > Think of   
   > > > > it   
   > > > > as a flu shot for the chicken$hits.   
   > >   
   > > > So now you are not only full of shit but you are the provider of the   
   > > > truth as well. How the hell does that work?   
   > >   
   > > I'll be more than glad to enlighten you. First, if you want to accuse   
   > > someone else of being "full of $hit", you should at least first prove   
   > > them   
   > > wrong (assuming you don't want to be perceived as an idiot). Now if you   
   > > can   
   > > provide some sort of evidence that shows the vast majority of people   
   > > AREN'T   
   > > fat by their own choice, then perhaps you would have succeeded in that   
   > > task,   
   > > but so far you haven't which means it's simply your opinion against   
   > > mine.   
   > > Furthermore, since mine happens to be the predominate one, the chances   
   > > of   
   > > you being the one "full of $hit" are considerably higher, no?- Hide   
   > > quoted text -   
   > >   
   > I don’t have to prove you wrong; this isn’t a point counterpoint   
   > argument. The onus is on you to back your statements. I only asked for   
   > some supporting data from were you formulated your claims. You appear   
   > to be extremely unwilling to provide it so I have to assume you have   
   > none and are full of shit. My opinion on the matter isn’t in question   
   > furthermore I have not offered my opinion so it’s not an opinion   
   > counter-opinion based argument. Learn to follow along logically for a   
   > change.   
      
   You haven't even so much as offered an opinion, proof-boy.  You're nothing   
   more than a troll who scours usenet for a chance to interject a smart-arsed   
   chicken$hit comment.  I'm sure you think you're clever and original, but the   
   reality is usenet is full of schmucks like you who demand proof for   
   everything but never offer any of their own.   
      
   The problem you've gotten yourself into this time is my original statement   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)